Hamlet. Was he really mad? [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

Rosalind

01-22-2006, 10:42 PM

Woah, Mark, my mind is blown by your theory. I never noticed that or thought about it. It's fascinating, but personally I think it's a bit far fetched. Not that I'm knocking the whole 'Hamlet-is-a-nutcase' thing. Horatio says something very interesting when the ghost is trying to speak with Hamlet:

"What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord, or to the dreadful summit of the cliff that beetles o'er his base into the sea, and there assume some other horrible form, which might deprive your sovereignty of reason and draw you into madness?" (Act I scene V)

Of course, Horatio can see the ghost himself, so he doesn't believe Hamlet is mad. But the idea of follow the ghost and risk madness could be a nice little bit of forshadowing.

I agree with you Oedipus complex comments. Hamlet seems more bitter about the king and queen's romance than hateful towards his uncle on any really personal level. And when he talks with the ghost, it certainly seems that he's looking for justification for revenge. After all, the spectre shows up and tells Hamlet "I'm your dad, you're uncle's evil, avenge my death, blah blah", and while everyone else is muttering about fiends from hell, Hamlet doesn't take a lot of convincing.

However, like Bluebiird, I like keeping an open mind. Hamlet DOESN'T act mad for most of the play, and then, the whole play's pretty damned depressing already. Maybe my subconscious doesn't like the idea of Mad Hamlet.

gsingle33

01-24-2006, 10:31 AM

I think you have to take the commonly-discussed theme of "appearance vs. reality" into account here.

Hamlet says to Horatio etc. that he will "put on" an "antic disposition," meaning that he will be adopting the suit of madness. This recalls his speech to Gertrude where he defends his long period of mourning for his father, saying that he "know[s] not seems" she had told him previously that "suits of solemn black" were to be cast off as an actor would a mask.

Now that all that is out of the way; I think that Hamlet is faking his craziness and that very shortly after he adopts this "disposition" the people around him begin to get wind of that idea. Act II sc 2 has Polonius (usually played as the most bumbling character in the play) figure out a hint of this when he says to the audience "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." I must say, if POLONIUS can catch wind of this, then there must be SOME grounds to it.

The problem with this idea is that Hamlet actually says to Laertes just before their duel that what he did to wrong him (ie kill Polonius) "was madness" and he can take no responsibility for it because it wasn't him who performed the act. (Act V, scene 2) Well, there's a couple of ways to look at this: One, Hamlet was mad for the instant that he killed Polonius (temporary insanity). Or Two, Hamlet wants to fool himself into believing that he did no wrong and cannot be held responsible for Polonius' death (self-deception).

Just some thoughts...hope they came out clearly. This is my first post on a forum, so be gentle :nod:

Xamonas Chegwe

01-24-2006, 11:01 AM

In the film "The Colditz Story" (and in an episode of the "Colditz" TV series) there is an officer that feigns madness in order to be released, resisting all attempts to prove that he is shamming. The irony is that when he is finally released, he is genuinely insane, having played the part for too long and too well.

This is always the way that I see Hamlet.

Bluebiird

01-24-2006, 11:13 AM

I am amazed at the amount of people giving their views on this topic. I expected it to be a case of ''yes'', ''no'', ''right, let's get on with other posts now''. I am absolutely loving reading everyone's views. It gives us all different views of the play, through other people's eyes.

Remember, there is no right or wrong answer, I want to know what you believe.

Just some thoughts...hope they came out clearly. This is my first post on a forum, so be gentle :nod:

Well, I'm honoured that you've chosen my thread for your first post 'gsingle33'. Welcome. And I look forward to reading some of your posts in the near future :)

The Unnamable

01-24-2006, 12:20 PM

I have never considered Hamlet to be mad (except in the sense of ‘angry’, as in his attack on women with Ophelia). In fact, I think he’s the sanest character in the Literature I’ve encountered so far (with the possible exceptions of Tom Sawyer and Richard III ). I suppose he must appear odd to the great and good of Elsinore. He questions his world in the kind of detail his world deserves. He sees more than anyone else in the play. How can anyone doubt the sanity of someone who gives that ‘What a piece of work is a man!” speech?

For me, the nearest he comes is in the scene with his mother (Act 3 scene iv), when he confronts her over having married Claudius, so much his father’s inferior. He simply cannot understand why she can’t see things the way he does. It’s the only time in the play when Hamlet looks so passionately to someone else to provide answers. She simply concludes, “Alas, alas, he’s mad.” I think the scene shows how young he is (I can’t believe he’s the thirty of the text). His advice to his mother has an almost childlike simplicity about it. Only someone relatively inexperienced in life could believe this:

“Refrain to-night,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence: the next more easy;”

I think part of his behaviour can be ‘explained’ by often overlooked lines from Act 5 scene i, when he says to Laertes:

“I prithee, take thy fingers from my throat;
For, though I am not splenitive and rash,
Yet have I something in me dangerous,
Which let thy wiseness fear:”

Perhaps we should heed Hamlet’s warning to Guildenstern:

“Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of
me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know
my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my
mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to
the top of my compass: and there is much music,
excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot
you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am
easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what
instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you
cannot play upon me.”

The Unnamable

01-24-2006, 12:23 PM

This is my first post on a forum, so be gentle :nod:
Ah, I remember my first post to this very forum. It was a balmy evening in the Valleys. I’d been chopping wood all day. Sipping vermouth, I let the monitor light and the hypnotic strains of Debussy entice me into a state of gay abandonment. The blood was banging in my ears. I knew I wanted to. I’d been thinking about it for longer than I’d ever admit. By the time you reach a certain age, you feel you have to, but I was worried that I’d do it wrong somehow. What if my efforts weren’t appreciated? What if I picked up a virus? I mean, they always seem to know what to do in the movies but this was real life. Once I’d made up my mind though, I knew that I’d see it through. Taking a deep breath, I softly eased my cupped hand around the mouse and pressed gently with my right index finger, “Submit”. It must have shot it into cyberspace at the speed of light because my creation appeared on the screen before me in an instant. The sense of release was overwhelming and I shuddered over and over. Then I sighed and lit up a cigarette.

Empress Kat

01-25-2006, 07:56 PM

I think it depends on your definition of madness. I mean, clearly Hamlet does not have schizophrenia, or MPD.

In my English class, we define madness as emotion overpowering reason. By this definition, you realize, we are all a little mad, sometimes.

Hamlet certainly is. In the Nunnery Scene, for instance, he is certainly mad. However, in the scene where Hamlet calls Claudius his mother, he is obviously not mad, despite what his words might suggest.

The Unnamable

01-26-2006, 07:22 AM

In the Nunnery Scene, for instance, he is certainly mad.
Why do you think Hamlet is mad in the ‘nunnery’ scene? I would agree that he is vicious and desperate but does that make him mad? The fact that Polonius, Claudius and Gertrude all assume that he’s mad makes me even less likely to believe it. I think it’s easier to consider Hamlet mad than it is to see him as I do – a ‘perpetual witness’.

gsingle33

01-26-2006, 10:00 AM

I think it’s easier to consider Hamlet mad than it is to see him as I do – a ‘perpetual witness’.

Hmmmm....could you elaborate?

The Unnamable

01-27-2006, 07:06 AM

Hmmmm....could you elaborate?
I’ll try but I don’t think it’ll do much good because I don’t share the belief, very well represented in many contributions on Hamlet here on the forum, that he’s a miserable ditherer who needs a good slap to make him quit his moaning and appreciate what he’s got.

The phrase, ‘perpetual witness’ comes from Saul Bellow – used to describe Moses Herzog. It conveys his sense of seeing with great clarity, yet not being able to switch off from, the endless parade of viciousness, evil, banality and crassness that is the life going on all around us.

On another thread, Hamlet’s so-called delay in killing Claudius is offered as evidence of one of his ‘tragic flaws’. In that thread, I asked, “Hamlet doesn’t act? What should he do? Kill someone? Why?”

It’s as if they believe that had Hamlet simply taken a sword to Claudius, the questions he raises would go away.

I think there seems to be an assumption that anyone with any sense would just get on with it, presumably like Laertes, who is prepared to kill someone without any thought. He’s prepared to kill Claudius simply on the basis of initially assuming that he’s responsible for his father’s death. The fact that Hamlet thinks profoundly about the meaning and implications of such actions (and I’m not simply saying that he considers the morality of murder by saying this) makes him ‘wet’ for a lot of people. The one time he does act without “thinking too precisely”, he ends up killing Polonius. A number of my students over the years have complained that ‘he thinks too much’, preferring such an explanation to admitting that it’s they who don’t think enough. Hamlet exposes aspects of our behaviour and asks questions that many would prefer to ignore, or simply don’t see. They distract us from the real business of life, whatever they assume that to be.

Hamlet’s ‘problem’ is that he thinks and feels. No one in the play can see the beauty, splendour and grandeur of life as he can (“this majestical roof fretted with golden fire”). However, no one is so paralysed by the other side of the coin, either. I love the idea that a mere character who thinks more than anyone on this entire forum could benefit from the homespun advice of those with all the answers.

It’s easier to consider him insane than it is to address his observations.

Bertrand Russell said that most people would die rather than think. Most people do.

gsingle33

01-27-2006, 01:42 PM

I agree with most of what you said. Just a couple of points to fire back...

Hamlet’s ‘problem’ is that he thinks and feels. No one in the play can see the beauty, splendour and grandeur of life as he can (“this majestical roof fretted with golden fire”). However, no one is so paralysed by the other side of the coin, either. I love the idea that a mere character who thinks more than anyone on this entire forum could benefit from the homespun advice of those with all the answers.
I partially disagree . I think there are others in the play who think and feel (perhaps only because Hamlet incites them to it, and there is definitely less thinking than feeling is going on). For instance, Claudius feels remorse for his actions, but cannot force himself to relinquish the gains "for which [he] did the murder" and therefore must continue down the damned path knowing his end will be in Hell. Of course, this may not have come to pass at all if 'The Mousetrap' had not been put on. He may have gone about his business with the crown and the queen without much thought toward his actions in acquiring them. Another example that you brought up is Laertes. He obviously feels the loss of his sister and his father, so much so that his desire for revenge would prompt him to "cut [Hamlet's] throat i' th' church" without thought (or perhaps care) for his own damnation at such an act. He then quells his own emotions in order to exact his revenge and become the "organ" of Hamlet's death. If that is not an expression of thought, I don't know what to call it.

My theory (and I may be splitting hairs here) is that Hamlet's problem is his view of the wider issue, the wider world outside of his own circumstances. Everyone else in the play narrowly percieves their own lives, but do not necessarily connect to the larger picture. Personally, I trace that back to his education. Without Wittenburg, Hamlet might have been more like Fortinbras: seeing what he wanted and taking steps to acheive it. I doubt Fortinbras would have thought about all the soldiers who were to die for "a little patch of ground," but Hamlet probably would have considered their lives, their families, and their friends. This is not a flaw.

It’s easier to consider him insane than it is to address his observations.
I also think it is easier to consider him "a man who could not make up his mind" than to consider the possiblity of the human race reaching Hamlet's level of contemplation. Some would react with, "We would never get anything done if that were the case." Well, if 'anything' really means what we do without thought or care for the larger picture (war, consumption, blind acceptance, etc.), which is probably somewhere near 80% of what we do during any given day, then I'm quite alright with that scenario and frankly consider it something of an ideal.

The Unnamable

01-28-2006, 01:44 AM

I agree with most of what you said. Just a couple of points to fire back...
Is this a duel? :D

I partially disagree . I think there are others in the play who think and feel (perhaps only because Hamlet incites them to it, and there is definitely less thinking than feeling is going on). For instance, Claudius feels remorse for his actions, but cannot force himself to relinquish the gains "for which [he] did the murder" and therefore must continue down the damned path knowing his end will be in Hell. Of course, this may not have come to pass at all if 'The Mousetrap' had not been put on. He may have gone about his business with the crown and the queen without much thought toward his actions in acquiring them. Another example that you brought up is Laertes. He obviously feels the loss of his sister and his father, so much so that his desire for revenge would prompt him to "cut [Hamlet's] throat i' th' church" without thought (or perhaps care) for his own damnation at such an act. He then quells his own emotions in order to exact his revenge and become the "organ" of Hamlet's death. If that is not an expression of thought, I don't know what to call it.
I didn’t say that no one else feels. I was simply pointing out that Hamlet is far more appreciative of the world around him than many readers/viewers seem to assume. Look at his ‘What a piece of work is a man” speech. He can see what few others either can or choose to.

HAMLET:
To what base uses we may return, Horatio! Why may
not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander,
till he find it stopping a bung-hole?

HORATIO:
'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so.

I also think it is easier to consider him "a man who could not make up his mind" than to consider the possiblity of the human race reaching Hamlet's level of contemplation. Some would react with, "We would never get anything done if that were the case."
Of course they would – it’s part of our conditioning. I don’t think of Hamlet as “a man who could not make up his mind”.

Well, if 'anything' really means what we do without thought or care for the larger picture (war, consumption, blind acceptance, etc.), which is probably somewhere near 80% of what we do during any given day, then I'm quite alright with that scenario and frankly consider it something of an ideal.
I don’t understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that you accept that we don’t think most of the time?

Empress Kat

01-28-2006, 01:47 AM

Why do you think Hamlet is mad in the ‘nunnery’ scene? I would agree that he is vicious and desperate but does that make him mad? The fact that Polonius, Claudius and Gertrude all assume that he’s mad makes me even less likely to believe it. I think it’s easier to consider Hamlet mad than it is to see him as I do – a ‘perpetual witness’.

I'm curious as to what definition of madness you are using. Clearly, it isn't the one I mentioned, but I am curious all the same.

Okay, so, as stated I define 'madness' as the state when emotion overpowers reason; when one let's their feelings get the better of them. I believe that, in the nunnery scene, Hamlet's emotions did get the better of him. He was fairly civil to Ophelia, at first. He begins to get angry, and asks her again, give her one last chance "Where is your father". When Ophelia answers the Claudius is at home- and I belive that Hamlet, of course, knew this to be a lie- Hamlet flips, gets angry, and yells at Ophelia more then he had intended to. It is temporary madness, true, but it is madness all the same.

The Unnamable

01-28-2006, 01:52 AM

It is temporary madness, true, but it is madness all the same.
So madness can be defined as 'losing one's temper under provocation'?

The Unnamable

01-28-2006, 01:59 AM

I'm curious as to what definition of madness you are using. Clearly, it isn't the one I mentioned, but I am curious all the same.

When I hear Hamlet described as ‘mad’, I assume it to mean something more than extreme anger. I take it to mean that he has completely lost all reason and can no longer be viewed as having any legitimate claim to speaking sense. What most of my students mean when they describe him as 'mad' is that he asks questions that they consider irrelevant and meaningless.

gsingle33

01-28-2006, 11:20 AM

Is this a duel? :D

Sorry, don't think I came off very clearly before. I was mostly agreeing with what you said and expanding on it a bit. I thought perhaps you were insinuating that other characters in the play do not think.

And yes, I do accept that we do not think most of the time. It seems to be a sadly evident fact.

The Unnamable

01-28-2006, 12:42 PM

And yes, I do accept that we do not think most of the time. It seems to be a sadly evident fact.
Now it's my turn to aplogise for not making myself clear. By 'accept' I meant 'consider it okay' but your calling it a 'sadly evident fact' shows that you don't accept it in the sense I meant.

SiHAc

03-17-2006, 11:10 AM

[COLOR=Royal Blue]Hey Guys...A few quick things-I'm new to this forum, I'm from Queensland Australia, I'm open-minded and I enjoy critically analysing shakespeare's work (especially 'Hamlet').
And I, like alot of the other people asking questions on this forum are studying Hamlet at school (yr 12), and I'm in the process of writing up an adaptation to Hamlet (That's how I came across the interesting forum)!

...This particular thread that I've been following, which talks about the subject of 'madness' and how well it correlates to Hamlet himself, has sparked my interest quite abit. I agree to the notion that Hamlet was not mad although he portrays being it brilliantly. I believe that he still has his wits about him, and I further believe that Hamlet himself takes a very critical eye to the world around him...which I find really cool.

So, MY question is...'Is it possible to position an audience to believe that Hamlet WAS actually mad?' This would be a hard thing to do I believe, but anyone who know's alot about 'Hamlet' and is able to deconstruct it, should be able to have the creative ability to argue that Hamlet WAS infact mad...mad as in 'lost in his own world', 'lost ability to reason', and in a more accurate case, perhaps 'paranoia' through thinking that the people around him are part of a filthy conspiracy.

To cut right to the chase though, I'm after someone who can willingly offer me some insite of what quotes, lines, or inferences I could perhaps use from Hamlet, to support IN FAVOUR of the idea that HAMLET IS MAD...

Can anyone help me? I'm very eager to hear any feedback.

Thanks

SIHAc

P.s pronounced 'Sigh-hack'...as in the 'periodic table of elements Si H and Ac'...lol....their atomic numbers' are 14 01 89..as in 14th Jan 89-my birthday!!

The Unnamable

03-17-2006, 01:02 PM

SIHAc,

This is very difficult – in my case you are asking me to offer evidence that supports a view of Hamlet I simply don’t accept. He isn’t any madder than I am (no, wait a minute, that’s not the best way to convince people here, is it?). I did see the Mark Rylance performance years ago –the one where Rylance’s Hamlet spent most of the play in his pyjamas. He was on the verge of a breakdown the whole time but this just added to my sense of his vulnerability as a sensitive, thinking human being stuck in a crass and vicious world. He’s not so much lost in his own world as lost in their world (which I’m sure most of us feel about ourselves at times).

However, if you really want to suggest that he’s lost his ability to reason, you could look at the scene with his mother in Act 3 scene 4. His monomaniacal obsession with his mother’s sexual behaviour with Claudius takes him into areas that border on insanity, I suppose. His language does suggest that he has a rather unhealthy view of sex, to say the least:

“but to live
In the rank sweat of an enseamed bed,
Stew'd in corruption, honeying and making love
Over the nasty sty,--“

It is obviously significant that the Ghost returns at this point and reminds Hamlet that he’s straying ‘off topic’. :lol:

But then he is still rational enough to make the following point to Gertrude:

“Mother, for love of grace,
Lay not that mattering unction to your soul,
That not your trespass, but my madness speaks:”

A few lines later, he shows that he is almost like a child. The following argument is unconvincing to anyone with much experience. It’s a naivety similar to when a child asks, “why can’t we share all the food so that there would be no more starving people?”

“Refrain to-night,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence: the next more easy;”

Earlier in the play (Act 1 sc. 5), there is Hamlet’s behaviour after meeting the Ghost. Horatio is a good sort and even he is somewhat alarmed:

“These are but wild and whirling words, my lord.”

That’s about all I can manage for now.

SiHAc

03-18-2006, 05:10 AM

The Unnamable,

Thanks for you reply. When I sent the message out in the first place, I realised that I would be challenging the views of many people, as you pointed out. But I appreciate the insite you gave me and I'm sure it would be very helpful in my upcoming play for English.

The context of my play is going to involve (hopefully) Hamlet visiting a shrink, where Hamlet argues that he is sane, where as the psychologist tries to convince Hamlet to see that he is actually mad-A tough thing to prove, but i like the challenge and the idea of going against the homogeny of thought (that hamlet was just feining madness).

Thanks again, and I hope we can consult eachother more often in time, on our shared notions of Hamlet's character.

Sihac.

Leper

03-21-2006, 02:23 AM

SiHAc

03-21-2006, 06:34 AM

Hamlet is human. Sanity is, in its entirety, a relative concept. In relation to you or me is Hamlet sane? Most people would believe no, though they may say otherwise, and even think otherwise, cosmetically. He acts like a lunatic in public. So have I, and no doubt so have you. He is ambivalent toward Ophelia. I have heard a number of arguments made to prove that he does indeed love her. The fact remains that he does not trust her, and whether this is neurotic paranoia or lucid caution has no impact on the meaning: there can be no love without trust. He balks at avenging his father. These misteps either occur before he has proof of his uncle's villainy, or at times he rationalizes as imperfect opportunities. Hamlet's perceived sanity or lack thereof is contingent on the audience and how he or she relates to Hamlet. A better question would be; are you sane? Explain why or why not. Define sanity.

Leper,

Wow, you put forward a very interesting and thought-out point. And i see how it is very noticeable in the play with each of the characters. Your message made me think about another topic though too. How is it that Hamlet trusts this ghost with ownly minor questioning, and completely distrusts Ophelia when he thinks she's against him even though with her is where most of his trust should lie? He had more solid reasons for trusting her than this 'ghost who too the image of his father'.
It's odd to me. :confused:
A very complex character he is.

Thanks for your reply Leper

SiHac

SiHAc

03-21-2006, 06:36 AM

It's ironic that I'm critcal analysing English, yet I only seem to be able to write like Yoda would speak. lol

Dark Lady

04-10-2006, 05:18 PM

I don't know if people are still visiting this thread (I literally just joined so that I could post on here - seems to be a theme of this thread. And yes this is the first forum I've ever joined too) but thought I'd give it a go anyway. If this comes out a bit mixed up it's partly because I'm on my second glass of red wine and partly because I can't really remember what I was going to say now that I've joined. Oh well here goes.

So for one thing - I don't understand why everyone keeps mentioning the Oedipus theory. I didn't get that from 'Hamlet' at all! I just thought he was a bit pissed off for his Dad because his Mum jumped into bed with his uncle so soon after his Dad died. Am I missing something?

Also I am writing an essay for University at the moment and although I mainly concentrate on Ophelia in my comments on Hamlet I do say in passing that I thought Hamlet did reaaly go insane after feigning it. Now, however, I am reconsidering that stance after reading this but just for arguments sake couldn't you say that it seems that some people gain the most clarity in insanity? After all going crazy is supposed to be very liberating so isn't possible that it is because of that fact that Hamlet can be so insightful?

And finally - someone said something about Hamlet not seeming thirty and I just wanted to say that I read a very convincing website about the different versions of 'Hamlet' and how originally there was no reference to him being thirty whatsoever.

If anywhere out there reads this - thank you for your time!

The Unnamable

04-11-2006, 02:08 PM

I don't understand why everyone keeps mentioning the Oedipus theory. I didn't get that from 'Hamlet' at all! I just thought he was a bit pissed off for his Dad because his Mum jumped into bed with his uncle so soon after his Dad died. Am I missing something?
I don’t think there has been much mention of Oedipus in this thread – perhaps your impression that there has been is itself the result of some subconscious Freudian desire (coupled with the wine). Whether or not you’re missing something is up to you. Some critics focus on the Freudian aspects of Hamlet’s relationship with his mother (in Olivier’s film she was played by Eileen Herlie, who was only a few years older than Sir Larry - she might even have been younger) and some don’t.

Also I am writing an essay for University at the moment and although I mainly concentrate on Ophelia in my comments on Hamlet I do say in passing that I thought Hamlet did reaaly go insane after feigning it. Now, however, I am reconsidering that stance after reading this but just for arguments sake couldn't you say that it seems that some people gain the most clarity in insanity? After all going crazy is supposed to be very liberating so isn't possible that it is because of that fact that Hamlet can be so insightful?
The wisdom of the fool/madman idea recurs throughout Shakespeare’s works as well as throughout the works of his contemporaries. Whether or not you believe Hamlet is mad is up to you but as you are writing for university, why not explore the need for such a debate in the first place? What difference does it make to you if he is mad? For me, the belief that he’s mad detracts from my sense of his plight as that of a sensitive, thinking person caught up in a corrupt world (and unavoidably corrupted by it). Perhaps that’s because that’s how I like to see myself. :D I think the reasons go deeper though – why has the issue continued to arouse interest over the years?

And finally - someone said something about Hamlet not seeming thirty and I just wanted to say that I read a very convincing website about the different versions of 'Hamlet' and how originally there was no reference to him being thirty whatsoever.
It was me – I think of him as mid-twenties at most – yet very few films or even stage performances have a Hamlet as young as that. I know that the different versions of the texts conflict but students usually ask me how old I think he is.

Amleth

04-11-2006, 04:16 PM

...
I don't understand why everyone keeps mentioning the Oedipus theory. I didn't get that from 'Hamlet' at all! I just thought he was a bit pissed off for his Dad because his Mum jumped into bed with his uncle so soon after his Dad died. Am I missing something?

No, you're not missing anything. There isn't any real Oedipus Complex in Hamlet. It's an idea that some people have gotten, but it isn't really there. Of course the Freudian people like to think it is. Hamlet is so famous (most quoted writing in English after the Bible, etc.) that people always try to use it, in support of their own specialty, somehow. They usually do that without a good understanding of the play, itself, tho.

... someone said something about Hamlet not seeming thirty and I just wanted to say that I read a very convincing website about the different versions of 'Hamlet' and how originally there was no reference to him being thirty whatsoever.

Hamlet is 23.

The Gravedigger has gotten his numbers mixed up. A person has to keep in mind that the Gravedigger is a *clown.* That isn't the same as a "Fool" in Shakespeare. A Shakespeare Fool is a character who speaks the truth, in a witty way. But a Clown misuses words, and makes mistakes.

As soon as the Gravedigger mentions "thirty years," Hamlet asks him:

~~~
How long will a man lie in the earth ere he rot?
~~~

It connects right back to the "lie" wordplay at the beginning of their conversation, where Hamlet accused the Gravedigger of "lying" in the grave. Hamlet is saying that again.

Hamlet means, if the Gravedigger has been at work for 30 years, he's been "lying" in the earth for 30 years, so how come he hasn't rotted away yet? Hamlet is actually asking the Gravedigger, facetiously, why he, himself, hasn't rotted.

In other words, Hamlet is saying that the Gravedigger is "lying" when he implies Hamlet is 30. He's not.

The Gravedigger doesn't catch that it's a personal reference to him, and he starts talking seriously about buried bodies. He missed the "lie" joke, at his own expense.

On the numbers, the Gravedigger is just mixed up.

Gertrude and Hamlet Sr were married for 30 years.

Hamlet is 23.

Yorick has been dead 16 years. The early spelling of "sexton" (the Gravedigger's job title) was "sixteene," if I recall correctly. It's spelled like "16." The Gravedigger has confused his own job title with how long Yorick has been dead.

Bluebiird

04-25-2006, 04:49 AM

So for one thing - I don't understand why everyone keeps mentioning the Oedipus theory. I didn't get that from 'Hamlet' at all! I just thought he was a bit pissed off for his Dad because his Mum jumped into bed with his uncle so soon after his Dad died. Am I missing something?
Some people think that there's an Oedipal complex between Hamlet and his mother, in that he wants to sleep with his mother and that he is jealous of his uncle. However, some people don't. It all depends on how you picture it and/or how you have seen it played. I hear that in some versions, Gertrude is shown as an alcoholic while in others, she shows an interest in Hamlet of a more mature nature and in others she is just a concerned mother. It really all depends on how you picture it. Being a play, there are no set roles on how the characters should act, they are for you to inturpret however you wish.

Chinaski

04-25-2006, 06:12 AM

We've just started studying Hamlet in english lit. I've already read it once and found it brilliant (I read a version in modern language, so I didn't need to get my head around the Shakespearian langauge, if I had, I probably wouldn't have liked it as much)

STOP RIGHT THERE! Shakespeare's language is difficult at first - but the language is the thing! You need to make an effort with the language, or you are wasting your time with Lit matey! Perhaps get a version with exp[lanations of some of the language - but MAKE THE EFFORT. The magic of Shakespeare - and it is magical, life changing, brain expanding stuff - is in the language. If you can't be bothered, drop English Literature and do English Language. You can analyse the language on a crisp packet or whatever it is they do.

I read an essay recently called 'Dying as an Art' by Fintan O' Toole (In 'Shakespeare is Difficult, but so is life'- not wholly related to this question, but a great read, and I am meant to be working at the moment, so can't get into this question right now! Will probably post later if I get time. A difficult question - as Harry Levin says: "Hamlet is the most problematic play ever written by Shakespeare or any other playwright". Don't look for easy answers - get stuck into the language and you'll find some. Without looking at the language, your answer will be worthless.

Bluebiird

04-25-2006, 06:44 AM

STOP RIGHT THERE! Shakespeare's language is difficult at first - but the language is the thing! You need to make an effort with the language, or you are wasting your time with Lit matey! Perhaps get a version with exp[lanations of some of the language - but MAKE THE EFFORT. The magic of Shakespeare - and it is magical, life changing, brain expanding stuff - is in the language. If you can't be bothered, drop English Literature and do English Language. You can analyse the language on a crisp packet or whatever it is they do.
Perhaps I should have mentioned. This version that I read had the old and modern text, on separate pages, side by side. And, I was only reading it (the first time) to understand what it was about, as I was in the process of repeating my GCSE's, when I had been expecting to move onto A-level. I decided that, if I couldn't study it that year, I'd get a head start and find out what it was about. Besides, I don't read stories for the language, I read them for the story.

Bluebiird

04-25-2006, 06:45 AM

Also, I know that Shakespeare’s language is difficult; I had to study Romeo and Juliet until it got so boring that I thought I'd explode, and I know that the language is the beauty of studying Shakespeare. But, when you're looking for a reasonably quick read you do not want to be trying to get your head around the language and thinking ''Wait a minute. What is that? Oh I hate this'' no, what you want is "Oh, so that's what it's about. Now I understand."
Reading it in a language that I could completely understand, I found myself unable to put it down. Had I read the old version, as it is meant to be read, I would have lost interest.

Chinaski

04-25-2006, 09:10 AM

Sorry to go on matey - you're wrong! The story is not even his, and is an OK yarn. The language is what builds up the character, and the character is what makes the story what it is. Shakespeare's genius is in the language. It should get more and more intriguing, not more and more boring - but it may be hard going at first! I'm sorry to drone on, but you will get so much more from Shakes. if you realise this fundamental truth!

I think a better way to get a 'grasp' of Shakes. is to watch a film version; you can then follow the plot and start to get into the language. Have you seen Brannagh's Hamlet? Mel Gibson's is also surprisingly good for a Hollyood version. There is also a Keanu Reaves version set in contemporary US at the Denmark Corporation - but I haven't seen that yet.

blp

04-25-2006, 09:31 AM

Chinaski

04-25-2006, 09:33 AM

I don't tend to like filmed onstage versions. Brannagh 'doesn't do what I'd do' with Hamlet, but I think it's an interesting, worthwhile production. Not exactly high praise, but...!

The Unnamable

04-25-2006, 09:46 AM

Hamlet is 23....Hamlet is 23.
Japonica
Glistens like coral in all of the neighbouring gardens,
And to-day we have naming of parts.

Bluebiird

04-25-2006, 10:47 AM

I think a better way to get a 'grasp' of Shakes. is to watch a film version; you can then follow the plot and start to get into the language. Have you seen Brannagh's Hamlet? Mel Gibson's is also surprisingly good for a Hollyood version. There is also a Keanu Reaves version set in contemporary US at the Denmark Corporation - but I haven't seen that yet.
We've been watching a version of Hamlet, on DVD, I don't know which one though. I think someone said that it was a BBC version, but I couldn't tell you any more than that. We've also seen it performed at the theatre.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the language, okay, it can be a bit confusing at times, but that's not really a problem. I'm just saying that it was much easier for me to read the modern version so that I could understand the story, and, when I read it again, for the purpose of studying, I read it in it's proper form.

Chinaski

04-25-2006, 12:03 PM

Bluebiird

04-25-2006, 01:45 PM

Each to his own I guess! I still reckon... As for the theatre - unbeatable. I just saw Richard III in Leeds - Northern Broadside, so nice gritty accents as it should be - none of yer poncy stuff. Conrad Nelson was an amazing Richard.
Actually, in my case, it's each to her own but I won't bother with that. It's definately best to see a play performed, then you can really get into it, and I've found that it's far more memorable than if you just read it. So, is that one thing, at least that we agree on?

Bandini

04-25-2006, 04:07 PM

I'm sure we agree on many things. I have reverted to my old member name by the way - it's a long story!

Bluebiird

04-27-2006, 05:29 AM

I'm sure we agree on many things.
We probably do

Bluebiird

04-27-2006, 05:30 AM

So, it seems that most people agree that Hamlet is completely sane while some do question his sanity. He could be mad then again he could not be mad. Does anyone else have their own opinion on this question? I absolutely love reading these posts and they'll be useful for my coursework, so if anyone has an opinion please post it.

lit_dork

05-02-2006, 05:14 AM

Leper,

Wow, you put forward a very interesting and thought-out point. And i see how it is very noticeable in the play with each of the characters. Your message made me think about another topic though too. How is it that Hamlet trusts this ghost with ownly minor questioning, and completely distrusts Ophelia when he thinks she's against him even though with her is where most of his trust should lie? He had more solid reasons for trusting her than this 'ghost who too the image of his father'.
It's odd to me. :confused:
A very complex character he is.

Thanks for your reply Leper

SiHac

I think it makes sense that Hamlet believes that the ghost is his father. The ghost shows a lot of humanity in his concern for Gertrude and the state of Denmark. And of course, the descriptions of purgatory verify him. I suppose it's always possible that the ghost is a "goblin damned," but I think that because Hamlet believes him, we are supposed to. And of course, "The Mousetrap" is Hamlet's way of verifying the ghost, just in case.

Bandini

05-02-2006, 09:24 AM

Siorry I haven't posted - busiest time of the year for me. If it was another time of year I'd be really into it!

Has anyone mentioned the obvious - that he actually says he must put on (I'm paraphrasing!) an 'antic disposition'. Also, when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern first see him, he appears very lucid and waxes philosophical - as well as being rather rude in his opening exchanges!

The meeting qwith R+G is useful for this question - He also tells R + G that Claudius and Gertrude are "...decieved." and that he is "mad by North and North West...I know a hawk from a handsaw" It is Polonious who is 'mad' (senile) - "That great baby is in his swaddling clouts" (makes us think about labelling and madness - those that are labelled mad by society are mad?)

Also, Polonious says "Though this be madness there be method in it" He can see that Hamlet is lucid - Hamlet is basically a very intelligent young man taking the p**s out of someone who is learned but not really with it!

'Madness' is a social construct - what one society deems mad another deems spiritual e.g. North American Shaman, seers etc; if we mean 'mental illness' then we could say Hamlet is mad - he appears depressed: "I have of late...lost all my mirth." - but if we mean is Hamlet lucid and capable of reason, then we must say that he is not mad.

Sorry that's garbled and all over the place - got to dash!

The Unnamable

05-02-2006, 11:23 AM

And of course, the descriptions of purgatory verify him.
Ah, an interesting comment. Do they? The following point has been disputed in recent years but I can’t remember who carried out the new research. However, here’s the point -Wittenberg (Hamlet’s university) was also Martin Luther’s university. So the fact that only Catholics believe in purgatory could make the ghost’s claims much more problematic. There’s an interesting snippet on it from the RSC here –

http://www.rsc.org.uk/hamlet/learning/historical.html

and here –

http://www.rsc.org.uk/hamlet/teachers/purgatory.html

Bandini

05-02-2006, 11:32 AM

God that was garbled - sorry! I hope that people keep posting, cos I generally only check new posts and I would love to hear views/discuss the play when I have a little more time.

lit_dork

05-03-2006, 03:02 AM

Ah, an interesting comment. Do they? The following point has been disputed in recent years but I can’t remember who carried out the new research. However, here’s the point -Wittenberg (Hamlet’s university) was also Martin Luther’s university. So the fact that only Catholics believe in purgatory could make the ghost’s claims much more problematic. There’s an interesting snippet on it from the RSC here –

http://www.rsc.org.uk/hamlet/learning/historical.html

and here –

http://www.rsc.org.uk/hamlet/teachers/purgatory.html

You're right about the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism in the play - it's certainly there and is an important influence. But I don't think this discredits the fact that the ghost is actually his father. And in some ways Hamlet's apparent Lutheranism is a problem not only between himself and the ghost, but also himself and Gertrude and Claudius (Gertrude tells him in 1.2 that returning to Wittenberg "is most retrograde to our desire" - I think that's it; I don't have the play in front of me). Hamlet's Lutheranism separates him (and Horatio, who is also a student there) from the rest of Denmark, the traditions of which he has a problem with from the beginning of the play. My personal interpretation of the ghost's being in purgatory is that it heightens a religious feeling about the situation. The religiosity of the ghost makes the reader realize the contradiction between Christianity and private revenge, which is what the ghost asks for.

Bandini

05-03-2006, 05:24 AM

A few more garblings on this:

Fisrt a couple of quote sthat are pointers to his state of mind (sorry no time for references):

"...a crafty madness keeps him aloof..." - he is able to avoid questions etc., by affecting madness

R or G (old friends of course, who know him well) mentions "much forcing of his disposition"

"...though it lacked form was not like madness..." - there is method in his madness - he is able to say what he likes under the guise of madness.

So he is not mad - as in totally 'hatstand'! But, as I said, yesterday he is depressed:

"...there is something in his soul o'er which his melancholy sits on brood."

His attitudes to Ophelia and Gertrude also suggest that he is 'mad' at women. see the hatred expressed toward women when he talks of them 'making men monsters' (cuckolds) and acting like, well down our end they use the phrase, slappers (!) - scornfully mocking thick make up, lisping and their wantoness in general. 'Nunnery' was also used as a term for a brothel - which adds another dimension to his many exhortations to "Get thee to a nunnery"

So maybe 'mad' as in a (almost irrational?) rage against 'frail' womankind..

Amleth

05-03-2006, 07:16 AM

... Hamlet's Lutheranism separates him (and Horatio, who is also a student there) from the rest of Denmark, the traditions of which he has a problem with from the beginning of the play. ...

That depends on how much a person thinks actual history was used in the play. Historically, Denmark was the first nation in Europe to adopt Lutheranism as the official state religion. That was under King Christian III, in the period 1533-1559, and Shakespeare must have known about it. The actual history goes right along with Hamlet being at the U. in Wittenberg. So, it would be Claudius who would really be "retrograde" in wanting to keep Hamlet away from Wittenberg. If Claudius isn't Lutheran, he's the one out of touch (as far as the real history is relevant, anyway.)

lit_dork

05-03-2006, 11:54 AM

That depends on how much a person thinks actual history was used in the play. Historically, Denmark was the first nation in Europe to adopt Lutheranism as the official state religion. That was under King Christian III, in the period 1533-1559, and Shakespeare must have known about it. The actual history goes right along with Hamlet being at the U. in Wittenberg. So, it would be Claudius who would really be "retrograde" in wanting to keep Hamlet away from Wittenberg. If Claudius isn't Lutheran, he's the one out of touch (as far as the real history is relevant, anyway.)

Good point. I guess I don't usually read Shakespeare in terms of the historical context that he himself was using. And I think I've heard before, I can't remember where, that Hamlet is set before the 16th century, although I could be wrong about that. But I suppose we could speculate on what an audience would have thought about all this. They would probably recognize (depending on their social status) that Hamlet was conforming to the official religion of Denmark, but he is then clearly at odds with the ghost's religious aspect, and there is no doubt that he and Claudius have conflicting moralities, no matter what religion Claudius adheres to. Speaking of which, is there any clear indication whether Claudius is Catholic or Protestant? I can't remember.

Bandini

05-03-2006, 02:00 PM

The historical aspects don't really interest me - apart from in relation to Shakes. own time. I am, however, interested in the way Shakes. reflects his own, rapidly changing, times in his work.

Amleth

05-04-2006, 04:45 PM

... And I think I've heard before, I can't remember where, that Hamlet is set before the 16th century, ...

The play is mixed, as to the time it's set. For one specific thing, the rapier is very much an Elizabethan type of sword. When rapiers are mentioned, that's straight from Shakespeare's own time. In the medieval time of Amleth, the weapon carried by Hamlet, or by Laertes, would have been a Viking broadsword, or more likely, a Danish battle axe, not a rapier. Also, the U. at Wittenberg didn't exist at the time of the original Amleth story, and the cannons are a Renaissance item. The play is mostly contemporary with Shakespeare's England, as far as the items that are mentioned, anyway. The mood is more medieval, tho, or seems to be. The "feeling" is Gothic. There's sort of a disconnect between the Renaissance things that are mentioned, and the medieval flavor of it, which adds to the spookiness, I think. In a way, it's as tho Hamlet is a Renaissance man trying to come to grips with a medieval world.

Hamlet has been interpreted as reflecting the transition from Catholic religion to Protestant, in England and on the continent of Europe. Hamlet Sr has been taken as Catholic, but Hamlet as Protestant. It's been seen as going along with the change from Catholicism under Queen Mary to Protestantism under Queen Elizabeth, in England. But that's a pretty general interpretation, overall, and isn't really that helpful for the play events, specifically. The religious interpretation does bring in the different ideas about Purgatory. (The Catholics accepted the idea of Purgatory, while the Protestants didn't.) It would make the Ghost in a sense the "ghost" of the old religion, of Catholicism, and Hamlet the representative of the new Protestantism. But people who see the play that way will often go on to talk more about religious history than about Hamlet.

There's an interesting point about the Ghost, tho. Hamlet Sr must have agreed to Hamlet attending the U at Wittenberg, since he would have been paying the bills. So it would be a Catholic educating his son as Protestant, if the Catholic-Protestant interpretation is correct. Hamlet Sr would be a pretty liberal Catholic, if so.

It's a pretty safe bet that the people of Shakespeare's England would have recognized the religious elements easily, since the Queen was the head of the church, and church attendance was required. There's a document that shows an investigation of John Shakespeare, the author's father, for not attending church, as one example. Religion, (and it had to be the "proper" religion,) was a serious part of their daily lives.

My own view of Claudius is that he can't be very religious under any denomination, or he wouldn't be a murderer. That's about as iffy as it gets, in religious terms, when you kill your own brother. :) It gives the definite impression, to me, that Claudius is outside religion, until he tries to pray his way back in, as the Prayer Scene shows. He'd probably be one of those people who goes to church because he's supposed to, but sits there and only pretends to pay attention. That's my take on him. Formally, he's probably supposed to be a Protestant, a Lutheran, I guess. I can't recall anything specific that makes him one religion or another, tho.

lit_dork

05-06-2006, 11:55 PM

My own view of Claudius is that he can't be very religious under any denomination, or he wouldn't be a murderer. That's about as iffy as it gets, in religious terms, when you kill your own brother. :) It gives the definite impression, to me, that Claudius is outside religion, until he tries to pray his way back in, as the Prayer Scene shows. He'd probably be one of those people who goes to church because he's supposed to, but sits there and only pretends to pay attention. That's my take on him. Formally, he's probably supposed to be a Protestant, a Lutheran, I guess. I can't recall anything specific that makes him one religion or another, tho.

I agree that Claudius is ultimately not very religious, but the prayer scene shows that he has a pretty clear understanding of it. He knows full well that he's going to hell so long as he remains king. He cannot will himself to get rid of what he gained by murdering his brother; it is a choice that he makes himself. And during the prayer scene he shows that he is more religious than others in the play. At that very moment Hamlet is playing God by deciding what will happen to Claudius' soul. Of course Claudius is not really praying, but Hamlet wants to make sure that he goes to hell. That's quite an affront to Christian belief.

Jagtig

10-11-2006, 03:47 PM

I am convinced that Hamlet did go mad. At first I wanted to read the work blandly, that is without terrible characters and things happening on the pages I was reading.

However, I used a line-linking and searchable text to gather up all the references to mental illness, and collect them in categories I was familiar with.
shakespeare.wikia.com/wiki/
There are so many references, I can't go into them here, but Hamlet, himself sincerely, and rather pathetically confesses his condition to Laertes when he tells him that he wasn't responsible for his father's death: it was his madness that was responsible.

ShoutGrace

10-11-2006, 05:55 PM

Of course Claudius is not really praying, but Hamlet wants to make sure that he goes to hell.

“O wretched state! O bosom black as death!
O limed soul, that, struggling to be free,
Art more engaged! Help, angels! Make assay!
Bow, stubborn knees; and, heart with strings of steel,
Be soft as sinews of the newborn babe!”

I would contend that Claudius was indeed sincere. He is making an effort, for lack of better phrasing.

[Rising]‘My words fly up, my thoughts remain below:
Words without thoughts never to heaven go.’

These lines don't pose very much of a problem for me. He is contrite but aware of the fact that, as you pointed out, he isn't going to be able to purge his soul without relinquishing his ill-gotten goods.

Here is the result:http://shakespeare.wikia.com/wiki/Th...ly _Insane.3F

There are innumerable problems with that list.

There are so many references, I can't go into them here, but Hamlet, himself sincerely, and rather pathetically confesses his condition to Laertes when he tells him that he wasn't responsible for his father's death: it was his madness that was responsible.

And of course there are countless interpretations of that statement, as well.

‘Pathetically’?

Demon1LT

10-15-2008, 10:43 AM

You have to consider the fact that back when shakespear wrote this, people had a different perseption on what they believed was mad.

Hamlet was always depressed, since the start of the book, he had always missed his father. The ghost was infact real, because there would be know way of knowing who killed his father and how he did it and that the fact that horatio and the guards saw it.

Hamlet puts on an antic disposition to act mad, not simply to confuse the people if he's really mad or not, but to keep them off track of why he is acting mad, to plot against claudius of course.

See, Hamlet was smarter than everyone in the play, no one could fool him.

I do believe he turns mad when his 3rd siloquey is heard. So all this time he was acting, but if you notice after the 3rd siloquey "I seen the devil himself" speech, he starts to act very strangely.

This debate is what makes Hamlet a great book.

Odysseus93

11-06-2009, 08:00 AM

I think that Hamlet is not mad, but very depressed and angry at the world that he sees as useless. He acts mad primarily to make others think that he is of no consequence, and because people often make observations that they would never normally say out loud in front of people that they think dont understand what they are saying (e.g mad people, children, etc.). My reason for believing that Hamlet is not really mad is that he seems totally sane whenever he is alone or with people he trusts, and dt the end of the play, prior to and during his duel with Laertes he shows no sign whatsoever of madness.

Gladys

11-06-2009, 05:50 PM

My reason for believing that Hamlet is not really mad is that he seems totally sane whenever he is alone or with people he trusts, and at the end of the play, prior to and during his duel with Laertes he shows no sign whatsoever of madness.

From today's perspective, isn't Hamlet mentally ill?

He has been depressed for months following the regicide.

He yearns for death throughout the play.

He sees, hears and acts on the ghostly hallucinations.

His behaviour toward Ophelia and Gertrude is erratic to say the least.

He kills Polonius on a mere hunch.

He entertains sexual fantasies about his mother.

He admits, to Laertes, something akin to demon possession, "Yet have I something in me dangerous, | Which let thy wiseness fear"

Most of the other characters in the play consider him mad.

Janine

11-06-2009, 11:52 PM

Gladys, I don't want to get into an indepth debate, but I disagree most strongly with your theory. Here is why:

From today's perspective, isn't Hamlet mentally ill?

Absolutely NOT!

He has been depressed for months following the regicide.

Depressed most likely, over the death of his father and the 'all too hasty marriage' of his mother - understandable....

He yearns for death throughout the play.

Hamlet may be experiencing depression after his father's death; but he is not longing for his own death anywhere in the play; yes, you might argue this in the 'to be or not to be' speech; but in reality, he is not to the point of truly wishing for it. He's looking to death as a way out of his present predicament of avenging his father's death; questioning the validity or logic of taking his own life. It is true that Hamelt is exploring the idea of death, throughout the play; however, he very much has a zest for life and living, which is being undermined now by the confusion he feels about his mother and sudden uncle's marriage and the appearance of the ghost of his father, commanding Hamlet, his son, to avenge his murder. It isn't until near the end while speaking to Horatio, just before the dual is to take place, that Hamlet finally comes to terms with his own possible death...(see the quote in Daniel's signature - that says it all). At this point he is finally resigned to the idea he might very well meet his own end..."the readiness is all". Much earlier than this, on the ship to England, had he really wished for his own death, he would NOT have altered the death verdict, that his uncle had written, therefore turning the evil upon his former school mates. He would NOT have bargained with the pirates for his life either. He is not mad or insane, to have been so crafty and logical in both of these acts. Also, if given completely over to the idea of his own death, why would he even bother to fight for it at the end of the play?

He sees, hears and acts on the ghostly hallucinations.

The ghost was seen by others; therefore, it was no halucination!

His behaviour toward Ophelia and Gertrude is erratic to say the least.

If you examine the text closer, you will see it is not as erratic as first thought. He's in a temporary sort of manic state, after seeing the ghost and he blames his uncle; then after events evolve he turns his mistrust to the women in his life. His mania is not unfounded; it's based on extreme circumstances; and is furthered on by the appearance of his school chums and also Ophelia's rejection and then the spying of his uncle and Polonius. Both women give him reason for anger and a reaction; Ophelia bars him from seeing her, as instructed by her father; then she tries to give him back his letters; not only that, she takes part in this covert spying on Hamlet. How upstanding is that? She is not so wise herself, in the manner, in which she treats her former lover. Gertrude gives him reason for anger, as well, being outwardly proud of her new husband and not showing any signs of the loss of her former husband, Hamlet's father. How much do we even know of her grieving period? Both women have their own eractic negative moments.

He kills Polonius on a mere hunch.

Not so. He had the play to prove his point and just what was Polonius doing in his mother's bedchamber? Was that even proper? I would think from Hamlet's point of view had he seen it was Polonius he might have refrained from stabbing him but surely his anger would be at fever pitch. This is the second time he has spied on Hamlet. Yes, it's tragic he mistakes him for his Uncle. But even giving the offense of the Uncle once again hiding to listen in to the private conversation between he and his mother, this is an offense, perhaps not one to warrent being stabbed by. However, the prood of the murder is in the reaction of the King to the play and the poisoning. It is fairly clear now to Hamlet that he has the proof he has been seeking. Horatio backs him up on this. Always, Horatio gives credence to the conclusions that Hamlet comes up with.

He entertains sexual fantasies about his mother.

What sexual fantasies do you refer to specifically? I have never bought into that one myself.

He admits, to Laertes, something akin to demon possession, "Yet have I something in me dangerous, | Which let thy wiseness fear"

Not sure where this takes place in the play but if after he is slashed by Laertes' sword near the end I can see why he would say this...perfectly understandable.

Most of the other characters in the play consider him mad.

What do you mean; most of the other characters in the play are a bit mad themselves! :lol:

Gladys

11-07-2009, 01:27 AM

Hi Janine. My post related exclusively to today's perception of madness. Mental illness, today, is assessed as a sufficient collection of negative behaviours.

Depressed most likely, over the death of his father and the 'all too hasty marriage' of his mother - understandable....

Quite understandable in the circumstances - like almost all cases of depression.

...but he is not longing for his own death anywhere in the play

There are oh so many quotes that suggest otherwise. For instance: "I do not set my life at a pin's fee"; "O that this too too solid/sullied/sallied flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew! Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd His canon 'gainst self slaughter"; "an unweeded garden, gone to seed"; "O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right!"; and "Absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain".

The ghost was seen by others; therefore, it was no hallucination!

Or the mass hysteria of superstitious people in troubled times.

...it is not as erratic as first thought.

Certainly - but mental illness is defined by how your peers perceive you, rather than by self assessment.

Yes, it's tragic he mistakes him [Polonius] for his Uncle.

If a mistake of such gravity happened today, the court would doubtless order a psychiatric assessment.

What sexual fantasies do you refer to specifically?

Hamlet's obsession with sexual aspects of his mother's marriage would seem very odd today.

Quote: "Yet have I something in me dangerous, | Which let thy wiseness fear"

Not sure where this takes place in the play but if after he is slashed by Laertes' sword near the end I can see why he would say this...perfectly understandable.

Hamlet speaks at Ophelia's funeral; not, later, during the sword fight.

most of the other characters in the play are a bit mad themselves!

Arguably. :)

kelby_lake

11-07-2009, 07:01 PM

Hamlet's solitude slowly turns him mad, I think. He is pretty horrible to everyone and has turned his back on Denmark. In his solitude he contemplates some weighty issues and his preoccupation with them turns him mad. Let's face it, Hamlet's not the sort of guy you'd want in a crisis.

As for the Oedipal thing...it didn't scream out at me from the text. It's an interesting interpretation but one gained from looking beyond the text. However Hamlet certainly has some sexual hang-ups: maybe he might be a Puritan? He is repulsed and yet fascinated by Ophelia and his mother's incestuous relationship- the interest he takes in it is perverse. Like Iago, constant graphic and explicit language/images means that the character clearly has issues in that department.

Gladys

11-07-2009, 11:16 PM

Let's face it, Hamlet's not the sort of guy you'd want in a crisis.

To his credit though, with all others dead, Hamlet does save Horatio from the mayhem.

Janine

11-08-2009, 12:37 AM

Hi Janine. My post related exclusively to today's perception of madness. Mental illness, today, is assessed as a sufficient collection of negative behaviours.

Hi Gladys.
Interesting; how are you qualified to define mental illness today? One can have a collection of negative behaviors and not be diagnosed with mental illness. Look at how crowded all our prisons are.

Quite understandable in the circumstances - like almost all cases of depression. Strange, I just watched a video tonight which broke down the various depressive illnesses by a clinician. One was depression brought on by a traumatic life event, such as loss of a loved one, especially a parent. The expert said this type illness usally resulted in several months of depression and was not serious. In Hamlet's case, his mourning period before the start of the play and the sighting of the ghost, would most likely fall into this category of completely normal behavior. The events that happen in the structure of the play and drive the plot add more so to Hamlet's melancholy state, whereas he might have been lifted from it in time had not the ghost appeared. Mentally ill persons, suffering from chronic depression, usually have no sound reason for that depression, because mental illness is a brain disorder based on chemical imbalances, even damage to the brain itself. It is no different than a physical illness; this is what many people don't understand about the illness and there is a stigma even to this day. Modern technology is revealing many advances and seeing mental illness in a truly new light. Circumstances play less of a role in making a person mentally ill than does genes.

There are oh so many quotes that suggest otherwise. For instance: "I do not set my life at a pin's fee"; "O that this too too solid/sullied/sallied flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew! Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd His canon 'gainst self slaughter"; "an unweeded garden, gone to seed"; "O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right!"; and "Absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain".

Hamlet exclaims the first quote, while first encountering the ghost of his father. It would be understandable he would be in a state of shock and venture forth with little regard for his own life in order to connect once again with his beloved father. The second quote was also following a very stressful scene; thus totally understandable that he feels trapped his circumstances and wishes to escape from them.

"an unweeded garden, gone to seed" not only describes the marriage bed of his mother with his uncle but the corruption of the state of Denmark. He is reflecting on the fallen state of his kingdom...fortelling of it's inevitable future.

"Oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right!" This quote shows the same thinking - being trapped in his new found situation and knowing he, Hamlet (the son of a king) now had the dread responsibility to set his father's murder straight. Who wouldn't wish they had not been born to deal with such a thing? Had he not reacted like this, I would have thought him mentally ill. A natural reaction for anyone.

"Absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain....speaking to..."

felicity - means happiness, correct? I don't think he means happiness in the true sense of the word here, but at this point what would Hamlet have to live for? Everyone who ever meant anything to him is now dead and to top that off, he gets word on his death bed, that his cherished kingdom is ceased by Fortenbras. By this time death is the only option and the only solace for Hamlet and he knows it. He has come full circle in his exploration on mortality and death. He is speaking these final words to Horatio, in order for him to stay alive a little while longer in order to convey the story to the others; preserve the true history of the events. Hamlet is quite in his right mind in appealing to Horatio in this statement which further shows how sane Hamlet truly is.

Or the mass hysteria of superstitious people in troubled times.

I can't buy into that. The ghost was first perceived by 3 others, prior to Hamlet knowing anything about it. If one, I might agree, but three other capable guards; no, never.

Certainly - but mental illness is defined by how your peers perceive you, rather than by self assessment.

Mental illness is never defined by one's peers. It even takes a very good and qualified doctor to determine if a person is seriously and truly mentally ill. Mental illness is not an easy disease to diagnos, contrary to opinion.

If a mistake of such gravity happened today, the court would doubtless order a psychiatric assessment.

That is a different story and we live in a much different society, than the one that existed in Denmark during this period. People are arrested today for avenging others through violence. If there was no 'avengement' theme in Hamlet there would have been no point to the play; there would have been no play. It is also true that accidental deaths can occur, even within our society and be exonerated. For instance, if someone was to break into your house and threaten you and you shot them; an investigation would take place and you might be exonerated due to self-defense. There are many different circumstances and who is to say who would be evaluated, pyschiatrically speaking. How did Hamlet know that whoever was hiding behind the aris would not kill Hamlet himself. Is it normal to hide from someone like that?

Hamlet's obsession with sexual aspects of his mother's marriage would seem very odd today.

Like Kelby, I have never bought into this. I think the things he says concerning his mother's incestuous relationship with his uncle are born out of suspicion and anger at their too hasty marriage and his the fact his uncle most likely murdered his father.

Hamlet speaks at Ophelia's funeral; not, later, during the sword fight.

Yes, right after he's been attacked by Laertes and nearly strangled. I guess you or me or anyone might react the same way. Also, it follows directly after his return from the ship to Denmark; with his new knowledge that his uncle had send direct orders to have him executed in England. I imagine if we all kept our wits about us entirely at this time we would be pretty impervious to anything or any emotion. I think Hamlet acts within the normal range of a human being in suffering; not always seemingly logical, but certainly understandable.

Arguably. :)

You know I do not agree. So, the uncle is totally sane? One could say he needs the psychological examination! He is driven by lust and greed and he is maniuplative and vicious and cunning; he has a lot of negative attributes in my book.

kelby_lake

11-08-2009, 08:17 AM

If you were to style Hamlet as a sort of Oedipus, you'd probably have to accept an Ophelia/Laertes attraction too, otherwise it just becomes a quick answer to Hamlet's madness. I think most people who buy into the Oedipal thing do so because they see Hamlet as being like Shakespeare and Shakespeare's wife was older than him- but again, that's looking beyond the text.

peter_ga

11-09-2009, 09:10 AM

At the surface, Hamlet is feigning madness. This madness is in the original Hamlet story. Why would Hamlet do this? The text is unclear. Conjecturing,this feigning is on the one hand defensive; to convince the king he is not enough of a threat to dispose of, and to mask his body language because in such a closed community as Elsinore it would be impossible otherwise to hide his feelings. OTOH the madness is offensive in that Hamlet may confuse and flush out the king in some act of villainy Although this strategy appears rather passive, the ghost seems to concur with it, urging Hamlet's companions to swear to abide by his request that they not disclose their knowledge that Hamlet is only feigning madness.

So far so good. Now we factor in Ophelia. Clearly she throws Hamlet, causing him to slip, when he says "-- all but one -- shall live" (iii,i,148). This utterance seals his fate, as Claudius discerns the meaning exactly and decides forthwith to send him to England, and his doom. Ophelia, whom one would expect to know Hamlet exceptionally well, immediately appears quite convinced Hamlet is mad. "Oh what a noble mind is here o'erthrown".

Ophelia is either wrong, right, or deceiving. If she is wrong, then she is a dumb blond, and one wonders what Hamlet is doing chasing after her. If she is right, then Hamlet has lost it. If she is deceiving, then she is indeed a clever girl, understanding exactly what is happening and attempting to protect Hamlet by throwing Claudius off the scent. She has strong motives; her loves well-being, and eventually the Danish throne.

Finally, there is the ghost to consider. It is a rather catholic ghost. It is not out of hell, lost to redemption, but in purgatory, getting itself fit for heaven. One wonders what it is doing urging Hamlet on to revenge, with rather a strong possibility of his eternal damnation. If it came out of hell, then this point would be moot. But how could a good ghost have any business urging Hamlet to revenge it?

Before Hamlet even sees the ghost, he is contemplating suicide. "Oh that this too too sullied flesh would melt". Could it be that urging Hamlet to focus on revenge is somehow good for his soul? It is noteworthy that the only other time the ghost intervenes is when Hamlet visits his mother. It claims that "This visitation is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose" however it is mainly concerned for Gertrude, especially her soul. Indeed Hamlet has been particularly active of late; staging the play, working himself up to a frenzy with his "now could I drink hot blood" soliloquy, sparing Claudius at his prayers but taking out Polonius by mistake. Perhaps the ghost mainly desires to motivate Hamlet, but to be effective, needs to camouflage its true purpose.

One would equate Hamlet's actual madness with the state of grace of his soul. To cater for the ghost's motivation, it could be assumed that Hamlet is going mad in act 1 before he has met the ghost, that the purposefulness of revenge stabilizes his condition, that feigning madness lets him find an internal equilibrium and a means of deflecting his madness outwards. This would make Ophelia an accurate witness in the nunnery scene, but raises severe questions concerning their courtship. I find it not understandable that Hamlet could be annihilating himself and also engaged in the extremely optimistic activity of courting Ophelia.

kelby_lake

11-09-2009, 01:28 PM

I wouldn't call his relationship with Ophelia optimistic...he's not exactly the model boyfriend. In fact, there isn't any real indication of why they're together.

Janine

11-09-2009, 04:21 PM

peter_ga, interesting post. I will try to get back to it later tonight. You bring up some good points or at least ones worth investigating. kelby lake, I think we are just not privy to how Ophelia and Hamlet's realationship is; except to say if you read her defense of her Lord Hamlet to her father and also her references to Hamlet to her brother, you will get some bit of an impression about their love affair. If you read between the lines carefully in the Ophelia/madness scene you also get the impression their relationship was not celebate and that he may have promised her to wed. I think they were quite involved considering the depth of the poetry he wrote to her.

peter_ga, welcome to the forum!

kelby_lake

11-10-2009, 01:20 PM

Yep, Ophelia certainly seems like the maiden defiled. She gets worried when Hamlet's having his mad episode and walking around half dressed so who knows what turned her mad?...

peter_ga

11-11-2009, 11:04 AM

As an aging misogynist my views on Ophelia are probably quite suspect. Men, whom other men delight not, cannot consider this character without projecting their idealized female on to her. Nevertheless I shall present my range of alternatives and develop her impact on the play accordingly.

We have the Mary Ann Summers take; the simple kindly conservative girl raised by country people, who knows the names of all the flowers and what's what. Hamlet has told her he loves her, and she believes him. Her father tells her to drop him, and she obeys. Overwhelmed by all the attention, she obeys her father and Claudius to approach Hamlet in his madness, to talk to him. When Hamlet teases her at the play, she catches the innuendo immediately and tells him he is naughty, though letting him lay his head in her lap, which to her is completely innocent. When Hamlet insists he loved her not, she replies "I was the more deceived", ie you could have fooled me. She takes Hamlet's chiding not a bit personally, concerned only for him. Guys love that.

Now we move on to her Ginger Grant aspect. Is she a supermodel of medieval Danish society? Hamlet says she is fair, Claudius says she is pretty. (I recall somebody alluding to her celebrity status, possibly by Laertes when she is mad or dead, but I can't find it.) She is the daughter of the King's councilor and spy-master, and brother of the man who raised a rebellion that threatened the King in a couple of days. She has won the heart of the heir to the throne, but not the hand. At the start of the play, her father is forbidding her to see her love. How did Polonius find out, we ask? "'Tis told me" (i.iii.90) starts Polonius.

"'Tis told me." Its on points like this that Shakespeare is most infuriating. Does this idle chatter start from Hamlet, a servant, a chaperone, -- or Ophelia. What does Ophelia stand to gain? What if she knew her fathers prohibition was likely? What could she reasonably expect to happen? If Hamlet loved her, he would be forced to declare himself and to propose. Of course something like this happens, after much delay, and her father, instead of confronting Hamlet after the closet visit as she would have expected, goes instead to the king.

If this is indeed Ophelia attempting to initiate the next step in their relationship, it is impossible to do anything but admire her initiative, as the rules of courtship were such that she was unable to even say "I love thee" without risking impropriety and calumny. She certainly has the Queens approval, a not inconsiderable achievement.

Note that she positively exceeds her father's intentions when it comes to obeying him regarding denying herself to Hamlet. "have you given him any hard words of late?" her father inquires. This snippet indicates Ophelia is either so dense and timid as to bely her spirited rebuttal to Laertes and her winning of Hamlet's and the Queen's approval, or she has at least welcomed if not engineered the whole prohibition to gain a commitment from Hamlet.

Of course Hamlet responds after much delay, and poorly, after two months with his bizarre closet visit, and no doubt after she has crossed paths with him often enough, and after she has given up. She is sincere, though still forgiving and hopeful, with her "when givers prove unkind" line, because Hamlet has failed to deliver on his vows of love. He has fallen into a kind of self-pitying blaming type of attitude with his "nymph" remark.

As I mentioned above, she is attempting to convince anyone listening that her love is mad, perhaps trying to protect him, in the Nunnery scene. In the play, it is her line "You are as good as a chorus, my Lord" which seems like an attempt to stop Hamlet baiting Claudius, for his own good, which would indicate a high degree of perception. (Zefferelli gives this line to Claudius.)

Of course she fails to get Hamlet to propose, fails to protect him from Claudius in the nunnery scene, and fails to defuse the play-in-a-play scene. Nevertheless, she emerges with dignity as a perceptive power-player, effects a reconciliation of sorts with Hamlet, and it was all so close to a happy ending.

Finally there is the "minist'ring angel" side to her. She tells white lies in the nunnery scene, denying her father is there when she knows he is listening, attempting to defuse a crisis. She uses her political skills only to positive purpose. The initial relationship with Hamlet one suspects was initiated by her pity and kindness to the deteriorating Hamlet, probably turned by him from a friendship to courtship out of gratitude to her. One feels the Queen senses this aspect to her and this is how she gains that most important regard. She seems to be totally aware of all the undertows in the nunnery and play scenes, and actively engages to defuse everything, though partially failing. If Hamlet would have made a worthy king, then Ophelia would have been a worthy Queen, as she displays political sense and great kindness.