The Ghost [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

Regit

10-01-2006, 10:44 PM

Why couldn't Gertrude, the queen, see the ghost? The guards, Horatio and Hamlet saw it. This is puzzling me.

This is because the ghost can choose who does see it and who does not, (during the night when it is doom'd to walk, that is). All of its appearances are purposeful. It is crucial not only to see its speeches, but also to mark the circumstances of its appearances in order to determine these purposes.

- In the first scene, the ghost's appearance becomes progressively real. As the guards, we want to understand what it is, and why it is. The most significant in this scene is its reappearance when Horatio, to some extent, accurately divines the reasons for its previous appearances:

"And even the like precurse of fierce events,
As harbingers preceding still the fates
And prologue to the omen coming on,
Have heaven and earth together demonstrated
Unto our climatures and countrymen."

This indicates to us (the audience) and himself that there might be some wisdom in Horatio's reasoning.
Therefore and moreover, the ghost's appearance was to alarm the guards in hope to meet Hamlet, who is certain to hear of it through them, and rightly, as Horatio promptly says:

"Let us impart what we have seen to-night
Unto young Hamlet. For upon my life,
This spirit dumb to us will speak to him"
Notice that, though the guards can also see the ghost, it only ever talks to Hamlet in the entire play. The ghost is not seen again (or at least does not feature again) after Hamlet has talked to it (until Act III), thus, perhaps, indicates that it no longer needs the guards to see it and that its initial appearances are deliberate.

- The reason why Gertrude cannot see the ghost is, again, because it does not wish her to. The purpose of this appearance is to scold at Hamlet for forgetting his given tasks: "This visitation is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose." One scold is, as Hamlet rightly says, it comes to its "tardy son to chide, that laps'd in time and passion, lets go by th' important acting of [its] dread command". The other scold, much more significant to your question, is because Hamlet was disobeying the ghost's command to leave his mother to the punishments of heaven by telling her the truth and asking her to repent.
In the first conversation with Hamlet, the ghost makes clear its disgust at the act of the "seeming-virtuous Queen":

"But virtue, as it never will be moved,
Though lewdness court it in a shape of Heaven,
So lust, though to a radiant angel link'd,
Will sate itself in a celestial bed,
And prey on garbage."

And, though her offence may not amount to the urgent punishment that the ghost asks Hamlet to give to Claudius, the anguished spirit of the King does not want to forgive her. If she was not confronted and advised of the terrible truth, she will not have the chance to repent and, thus, will have to face the consequences enforced by heaven (which she does deserve for her unknowing act of lust alone)(A similar reasoning is used when Hamlet decides not to kill Claudius whilst he is confessing.):

"Taint not thy mind; nor let thy soul contrive
Against thy mother aught; leave her to heaven,
And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge,
To prick and sting her."

So when Hamlet was very close to making Gertrude realise the unvirtuous nature of her new marriage and, even to persuading her that her new husband is a murderer, the ghost interferes simply to stop this from happening. If it lets Gertrude see it, the pale spirit of her murdered King, this would only further convince her that Hamlet is telling her the truth, and further amount to her remorse and penitence, which would be completely against its cause. But by not letting Gertrude see it, yet conversing with Hamlet at the same time, it, perhaps wittingly, aids Hamlet on his task of faking insanity. Therefore, this invisibility is purposeful. And, therefore, who does see the ghost and who does not is intentional on the part of the ghost.

Perhaps the ghost must be cunning in this, for, though Hamlet appears to grief and obey his father's wishes whole-heartedly, his just and extraordinary sense of morality understands the immorals of these wishes and contemplates them with even more devotion.

aeroport

10-01-2006, 11:16 PM

Regit: That was my next guess. :D

ash_of_lee

10-02-2006, 03:02 AM

Your theorys not bad mine is that they are sub consious voices talking to conscious voices that being FRANCISCO and sub being BERNARDO and once they fall asleep FRANCISCO goes and enters MERCELLUS and thats when they dream

Thorwench

10-02-2006, 03:27 AM

I agree with Regit. If Gertrude would have seen the ghost Hamlets feigned madness would not work. There is also an indication that there was an earlier version of Hamlet by Kyd (now lost) which included a ghost for theatrical reasons (horror, stunned audience etc.) whereas the medieval telling of Hamlet (then called Amleth) includes the feigned madness but not the ghost. So it could well be that Shakespeare merged the two versions (he often picked up on earlier works or stories) but changed the logic towards an inner conflict (i.e. Hamlet's). Greenblatt's interpretation goes back to those two versions and to the catholocism problem because he argues that SH. could have been a crypto.catholic for whom the prohibition of last rites and masses after death may have been a considerable problem. What I didn't know but found in Greenblatt's book was that SH.'s only son, called Hamlet (SIC) died, the play was written after his death. So, it is not unlikely that such religious issues which have a very personal meaning for the people concerned may have played their part in the shifting of the above mentioned focus. Perhaps the roles of Gueldenstern and Rosenkranz can be seen in the same light. SH's Hamlet studied at the first protestant founded university in Europe (i.e. Wittenberg) but has no the best relationship to his fellow students.

Virgil

10-02-2006, 07:27 AM

. And, therefore, who does see the ghost and who does not is intentional on the part of the ghost.

Perhaps the ghost must be cunning in this, for, though Hamlet appears to grief and obey his father's wishes whole-heartedly, his just and extraordinary sense of morality understands the immorals of these wishes and contemplates them with even more devotion.

Very good analysis Regit. However, is a coincident that who sees the ghost also serves Shakespeare's purposes as dramatist? ;) Under your analysis why would the ghost show himself to the guards? He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone, not on that Danish field.

Regit

10-02-2006, 06:32 PM

What I didn't know but found in Greenblatt's book was that SH.'s only son, called Hamlet (SIC) died, the play was written after his death.
William Shakespeare's son, who died in infancy, was Hamnet Shakespeare, not Hamlet.

Thorwench

10-03-2006, 07:47 AM

That's true but the name is pretty pretty similar, my name exists in at least 4 different spellings all meaning the same (not to speak of the diminuitive versions). The name "Hamnet" was not that uncommon anyway, Shakespeares had a neighbour or something called Hamnet too.

Regit

10-04-2006, 06:04 AM

Very good analysis Regit. However, is a coincident that who sees the ghost also serves Shakespeare's purposes as dramatist? ;)
So does whoever that does not see the ghost. In fact, the entire play, cast and plots, serves Shakespeare's purposes as a dramatist. Thus, statements of that nature are of little value. Characters have their own personalities and purposes, sometimes surpassing the expectation and control of the author. Besides, if they do serve Shakespeare's dramatic purposes, perhaps you could explain how with more than a statement.

Under your analysis why would the ghost show himself to the guards? He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone, not on that Danish field.

The ghost, like all other characters, is subject to characterisation. Meaning, again, that its course of action is determined by its person and purposes. Its ghostly nature does give it different physical abilities and activities, yet changes nothing of its mental existence. Therefore, the dead King does not know exactly how Hamlet recieves his death. Whilst the rest of the royal family recover quickly and their grief is clearly but "the strappings and suits of woes" and forget underneath, it is perhaps natural for the ghost to doubt others' devotion to it, including Hamlet's. For, though Hamlet's grief is and does not seem, he does have on him, as the rest of them have, the similar "customary suits of solemn black", the "windy suspiration of forc'd breath", the "fruitful river in the eye", and the "dejected havious of the visage," identical to an outside eye; and it is a difficult task to separate him, who is with real grief from those without. Yet...

"He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone," you say?

"Why, what should be the fear?
I do not set my life at a pin's fee;
And for my soul, what can it do to that,
Being a thing immortal as itself:
It waves me forth again; I'll follow it."
The enthusiasm of Hamlet to follow Horatio to see the ghost that might be his father's spirit is a testiment to his devotion (his soul and, thus, his purpose is as immortal as the ghost). It also proves Hamlet's bravery and determination, brought about only by his faithful interpretation of the ghost's appearance. For if his doubt that it might be a spirit of "goblin damn'd", or had "wicked" intents is more than his yearning to know what the spirit of his father has to say and to have justice, he would not have come, and he would not have followed it. YET, after all proofs, the ghost still has to be further reassured:

"list, Hamlet, oh list.
If thou didst ever thy dear father love."

The ghost's goal is decidedly revenge. Therefore, one aspect of the ghost's purpose is to find its ally; and it must embark upon this with care. It could have also appeared in Gertrude's room; her duty to avenge it is as heavy as Hamlet's if not more. It could also have appeared and spoken anywhere, for it is also a people's duty to avenge its King. Yet, trust is not a murdered, betrayed, and forgoten soul's quality.

Virgil

10-04-2006, 08:12 AM

"He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone," you say?

"Why, what should be the fear?
I do not set my life at a pin's fee;
And for my soul, what can it do to that,
Being a thing immortal as itself:
It waves me forth again; I'll follow it."
The enthusiasm of Hamlet to follow Horatio to see the ghost that might be his father's spirit is a testiment to his devotion (his soul and, thus, his purpose is as immortal as the ghost). It also proves Hamlet's bravery and determination, brought about only by his faithful interpretation of the ghost's appearance. For if his doubt that it might be a spirit of "goblin damn'd", or had "wicked" intents is more than his yearning to know what the spirit of his father has to say and to have justice, he would not have come, and he would not have followed it. YET, after all proofs, the ghost still has to be further reassured:

"list, Hamlet, oh list.
If thou didst ever thy dear father love."

That proves my point. The ghost serves Shakespeare's purposes rather than having any consitent rules of it's being. If revenge were the the ghost's motivation, then he could have shown himself to every loyal Dane in the country and they would have ganged up and killed the king. The rules which govern who and why see the ghosts are arbitrary within the world of the play, but conveniently serve Shakespeare as story teller to tell the tale.

Regit

10-04-2006, 02:15 PM

That proves my point. The ghost serves Shakespeare's purposes rather than having any consitent rules of its being. If revenge were the the ghost's motivation, then he could have shown himself to every loyal Dane in the country and they would have ganged up and killed the king. The rules which govern who and why see the ghosts are arbitrary within the world of the play, but conveniently serve Shakespeare as story teller to tell the tale.

I've already acknowledged your point: It's little more than stating the obvious. Shakespeare is a dramatist; "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" is a dramatic work written BY Shakespeare. HENCE, the play, including its entire plots and cast, must serve the purpose of Shakespeare as a dramatist. The "rules" within "the world of a play" should conveniently serve the story teller, since he is one who created them. That doesn't need to be proven.

The paragraph of mine the you quoted does not prove your point. It attempts to explain how the ghost's characteristics and reasonings lead to its specific course of action. As I have already said, characters have their own person and purposes (created by the author, yes, but, none the less, they are completely entitled to individuality).

Virgil

10-04-2006, 07:49 PM

The "rules" within "the world of a play" should conveniently serve the story teller, since he is one who created them. That doesn't need to be proven.

That I'm afraid is wrong. Once the storyteller establishes the rules of the created world, he cannot willy-nilly change them just to serve his purposes. And that is what Shakespeare does with the ghost. The whole episode of the ghost within the rules of the "Hamlet" world is incongruous. Hamlet is a great play; but it is a flawed play, for several reasons.

The paragraph of mine the you quoted does not prove your point. It attempts to explain how the ghost's characteristics and reasonings lead to its specific course of action. As I have already said, characters have their own person and purposes (created by the author, yes, but, none the less, they are completely entitled to individuality).
I have no idea what you mean by this. If the rules of the ghost with the "Hamlet" world is that he is seen by people when he appears, then Shakespeare violates that rule in the Hamlet and mother scene for his own purposes.

Regit

10-05-2006, 05:18 PM

I have no idea what you mean by this. If the rules of the ghost with the "Hamlet" world is that he is seen by people when he appears, then Shakespeare violates that rule in the Hamlet and mother scene for his own purposes.
Now that, I'm afraid, is wrong. Your logic here is flawed. I argue that the ghost can chose who sees it and who doesn't. Just because everyone sees it when the ghost appears in the first scene, that doesn't mean that it does not have the ability to 'not be seen' by a particular person at that time. (In other words, if you want to talk logic, the condition that 'the ghost has the power to choose who can see it when it appears' does not exclude the possibility of 'everyone in its presence seeing it'. Hence the fact that 'everyone in its presence does see it' does not void the initial condition that 'it does possess that power').
If it wanted one of the guards, or Horatio not to see it, that might still happen. But, if it did that, then they would not agree that it is real, which is something it is trying to convince them of (arguably the main point of the first scene), and Hamlet would not hear of it:

"Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,
And will not let belief take hold of him
Touching this dreaded sight, twice seen of us:
Therefore I have entreated him along
With us to watch the minutes of this night;
That if again this apparition come,
He may approve our eyes and speak to it."

The ghost had to let all of them see it, else this doubt will never defeated, as Horatio himself remarks:

"Before my God, I might not this believe
Without the sensible and true avouch
Of mine own eyes."

Thus the events serve the ghost's purpose (which is, yes of course, also Shakespeare's purpose for it), and that's why it doesn't use here the power that it evetually does in Act III. The fact that everyone in its presence can see the ghost, hence, is NOT a "rule" of the world of "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark". It is merely what happens in the first scene.

The whole episode of the ghost within the rules of the "Hamlet" world is incongruous. Hamlet is a great play; but it is a flawed play, for several reasons.
You would allow yourself to be critical before attempting to analyse (if you have on your own time, you would understand that it is important to make that clear). None of your previous posts amount to anything more than mere statements; when I, as a reader, naturally demand explanation and analysis. A dramatic master piece that took the greatest playwright of our time many years to complete, yet it would be summed up and broken down by: "The whole episode of the ghost within the rules of the "Hamlet" world is incongruous. Hamlet is a great play; but it is a flawed play, for several reasons"?
Perhaps Shakepeare deserves the benefit of the doubt and our best effort to make sense of his work (though even that may not be good enough), and not to be briefly criticised. Your efforts are pale in comparison even to my deficient attempts at criticising your deficient criticism, let alone the great master piece. Be it that it must inevitably have flaws, it is of no value whatsoever to make that remark without any expanded explanation.

Virgil

10-05-2006, 09:45 PM

Now that, I'm afraid, is wrong. Your logic here is flawed. I argue that the ghost can chose who sees it and who doesn't. Just because everyone sees it when the ghost appears in the first scene, that doesn't mean that it does not have the ability to 'not be seen' by a particular person at that time.
Very well. But if the ghost can appear to who he wishes, why doesn't he appear to all the Danes to kill the King? Or appear to the Queen before she marries his brother and stop the wedding? Or tell Hamlet that Polonius is behind the curtain and not the King? Or why doesn't the ghost appear again after the middle of the play?

Thus the events serve the ghost's purpose (which is, yes of course, also Shakespeare's purpose for it), and that's why it doesn't use here the power that it evetually does in Act III. The fact that everyone in its presence can see the ghost, hence, is NOT a "rule" of the world of "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark". It is merely what happens in the first scene.
I maintain that it is willy-nilly. There is no rhyme or reason. The ghost has every motivation to show himself to the Queen to prove that Hamlet's motivations are honorable and not insane.

You would allow yourself to be critical before attempting to analyse (if you have on your own time, you would understand that it is important to make that clear).
Hey, I've been reading Shakespeare and Hamlet before you were even born. We've discussed this in class. The person who asked the question probably didn't think of it on his own; it was probably a class discussion. The question is not absurd, has been asked before, and is the subject of commentary. You shouldn't be such a snot-*** kid all your life.

None of your previous posts amount to anything more than mere statements; when I, as a reader, naturally demand explanation and analysis. A dramatic master piece that took the greatest playwright of our time many years to complete,
Well, that just proves how ignorant you are on the subject. Shakespeare averaged three or four plays per year through most of his career. He never spent even a single year on any work.

Perhaps Shakepeare deserves the benefit of the doubt and our best effort to make sense of his work
Of course he does. But are you saying he's infallable? Are you saying that every one of his 38 plays are masterpieces? They are not.

Scheherazade

10-06-2006, 01:09 AM

Please do not personalise your comments.

Regit

10-06-2006, 09:15 AM

We've discussed this in class. The person who asked the question probably didn't think of it on his own; it was probably a class discussion. The question is not absurd, has been asked before, and is the subject of commentary.When did I say that it was an absurd question? In fact, I spent the best part of an hour and a half trying to answer it, because I thought it an interesting question.

But are you saying he's infallable? Are you saying that every one of his 38 plays are masterpieces? They are not. I said Hamlet was a masterpiece. And I also said that even this masterpiece must "inevitably have flaws". Thus, I did not say that Shakespeare is infallable, just a lot less so than you are (or than, indeed, I am).

Hey, I've been reading Shakespeare and Hamlet before you were even born. Plenty of people did plenty of things before I was born; some efforts were remarkable, and some were mediocre. When and for how long you've read Hamlet, then, is really not a strong argument. If your understanding of it is so much better than my "ignorant" part, why not show it? Is it unreasonable on my part to take into account only what I can read and learn? And what have you written here that would teach me of your extensive knowledge on Hamlet?

Very well. But if the ghost can appear to who he wishes, why doesn't he appear to all the Danes to kill the King? Or appear to the Queen before she marries his brother and stop the wedding? Or tell Hamlet that Polonius is behind the curtain and not the King? Or why doesn't the ghost appear again after the middle of the play?

The ghost has every motivation to show himself to the Queen to prove that Hamlet's motivations are honorable and not insane. I believe I have already explained my reasons for believing otherwise. But you have not done the same. I do not say that I am right and you are wrong; I do not say that I am wise or knowing, I simply demand that, if you want to challenge my view, you must be prepared to put in reasonable effort, since I know that I have. And that effort must be HERE, not more than 20 years ago when you discussed it in class before I was born.

I maintain that it is willy-nilly.I already knew that you would maintain that, what I asked for was an explanation, not another statement. And look what I found to accompany your statement: "There is no rhyme or reason." Would you consider this a satisfactory explanation? You spent more words to ridicule me, having assumed that I have intentionally offended your person, than you did on Hamlet.

Well, that just proves how ignorant you are on the subject. Shakespeare averaged three or four plays per year through most of his career. He never spent even a single year on any work. Ignorant? You decide that I am ignorant on the subject simply because I said that it took Shakespeare many years to write Hamlet without explaining myself further? Shouldn't you ask for it if you don't understand what I mean? Yet my demand for explanation before rediculing is a snot-*** one.

Yes, I know that Hamlet is believed to have been written within one or two years shortly before 1600 or 1601 when it was first staged. But in the first authorised publication of the second Quatro in 1604 appeared great changes, indicating that Shakespeare had continued to work on his masterpiece until then. The first folio of Shakespeare's complete work published in 1623 also included Hamlet with yet further significant changes. This suggests that Shakespeare never stopped working on Hamlet until he died. It is for this reason that Professor Harold Bloom praises "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" as the Mona Lisa of literature (because Da Vinci never stopped working on the latter either). Professor Harold Bloom also suggests that, since he believes that Ur-Hamlet was written by Shakespeare, the play was only re-written after his infant son died though with major changes: it is a questionable claim, yet, still a valid possibility. Thus, to consider any of these elements would mean that it did take Shakespeare many years to write Hamlet. Even if you only mean to talk about its first completion, that's your stance; it doesn't make me wrong, and it certainly doesn't prove that I am ignorant on the subject.

And, to be clear, I never meant to make an attack on your person. Such is the nature of an argument. I was once told: "That's ok if you disagree with me. We disagree quite often and vigorously here on lit net. We don't hold grudges in our disagreements, at least I don't."

Virgil

10-06-2006, 04:47 PM

I believe I have already explained my reasons for believing otherwise. But you have not done the same.

Very well. But if the ghost can appear to who he wishes, why doesn't he appear to all the Danes to kill the King? Or appear to the Queen before she marries his brother and stop the wedding? Or tell Hamlet that Polonius is behind the curtain and not the King? Or why doesn't the ghost appear again after the middle of the play?

I believe I have already answered the question. I cannot prove a negative within the context of the play, so therefore there is no quote I can cite to prove the point. I answer it by showing that the rules of the ghost within the play are inconsistent with the motivations of the ghost. If the ghost can decide who he wishes to see him, and he can communicate with living people, then there is no reason for him to not coordinate all the people to take revenge. Here's the ghost's motivation, from Act 1, Scene 5:

Ghost
So art thou to revenge, when thou shalt hear.

HAMLET
What?

Ghost
I am thy father's spirit,
Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid
To tell the secrets of my prison-house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres,
Thy knotted and combined locks to part
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porpentine:
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, list, O, list!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love--

HAMLET
O God!

Ghost
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.

HAMLET
Murder!

Ghost
Murder most foul, as in the best it is;
But this most foul, strange and unnatural.

HAMLET
Haste me to know't, that I, with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love,
May sweep to my revenge.

Ghost
I find thee apt;
And duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed
That roots itself in ease on Lethe wharf,
Wouldst thou not stir in this. Now, Hamlet, hear:
'Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,
A serpent stung me; so the whole ear of Denmark
Is by a forged process of my death
Rankly abused: but know, thou noble youth,
The serpent that did sting thy father's life
Now wears his crown.
So clearly the we know the ghost's motivation. So now, Regit, if you're so smart you answer my questions which I'll repeat here again:

But if the ghost can appear to who he wishes, why doesn't he appear to all the Danes to kill the King? Or appear to the Queen before she marries his brother and stop the wedding? Or tell Hamlet that Polonius is behind the curtain and not the King? Or why doesn't the ghost appear again after the middle of the play?

I really would like to see your answers, mister smarty-pants.

Regit

10-07-2006, 02:21 PM

I believe I have already answered the question. I cannot prove a negative within the context of the play, so therefore there is no quote I can cite to prove the point. If the play is flawed, then, surely, the evidence for those flaws would be in the play, no? And I asked for explanation, not quotes. Yes, I know you think that you've explained it. But:

I answer it by showing that the rules of the ghost within the play are inconsistent with the motivations of the ghost. This is only a valid explanation (valid, not good - of course, you're entitled to say the same about mine) if you make clear what you believe the ghost's motivation is (and no, the word "revenge" alone is not enough an answer). You have not.

So clearly the we know the ghost's motivation. And what is that? I see here a quotation and an instruction saying: that's the ghost motivation. You can do better, can't you? The ghost doesn't just say "I want revenge", does it? It says many other things that must be of significance. So I will ask you again, what, do you think, is the ghost's motivation? I am not being patronising. It is important to establish exactly what the ghost's purpose is, as the smallest differences would lead to different outcomes. "Revenge" is only a general term; each person wants revenge in a different way. For example, eventhough we both agree that the ghost's goal is to tell Hamlet to take revenge, yet we have different reasonings for its action to appear to the guards first instead of directly to Hamlet. Yours is, of course, that Shakespeare's ghost is a flawed character. Here's to remind you of mine (which will also serve the purpose for my reasonings proceeding it):

The ghost, like all other characters, is subject to characterisation. Meaning, again, that its course of action is determined by its person and purposes. Its ghostly nature does give it different physical abilities and activities, yet changes nothing of its mental existence. Therefore, the dead King does not know exactly how Hamlet recieves his death. Whilst the rest of the royal family recover quickly and their grief is clearly but "the strappings and suits of woes" and forget underneath, it is perhaps natural for the ghost to doubt others' devotion to it, including Hamlet's. For, though Hamlet's grief is and does not seem, he does have on him, as the rest of them have, the similar "customary suits of solemn black", the "windy suspiration of forc'd breath", the "fruitful river in the eye", and the "dejected havious of the visage," identical to an outside eye; and it is a difficult task to separate him, who is with real grief from those without. Yet...

"He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone," you say?

"Why, what should be the fear?
I do not set my life at a pin's fee;
And for my soul, what can it do to that,
Being a thing immortal as itself:
It waves me forth again; I'll follow it."

The enthusiasm of Hamlet to follow Horatio to see the ghost that might be his father's spirit is a testiment to his devotion (his soul and, thus, his purpose is as immortal as the ghost). It also proves Hamlet's bravery and determination, brought about only by his faithful interpretation of the ghost's appearance. For if his doubt that it might be a spirit of "goblin damn'd", or had "wicked" intents is more than his yearning to know what the spirit of his father has to say and to have justice, he would not have come, and he would not have followed it. YET, after all proofs, the ghost still has to be further reassured:

"list, Hamlet, oh list.
If thou didst ever thy dear father love."

The ghost's goal is decidedly revenge. Therefore, one aspect of the ghost's purpose is to find its ally; and it must embark upon this with care. It could have also appeared in Gertrude's room; her duty to avenge it is as heavy as Hamlet's if not more. It could also have appeared and spoken anywhere, for it is also a people's duty to avenge its King. Yet, trust is not a murdered, betrayed, and forgoten soul's quality.

The introduction of the story of Fortinbras and his father is a clear suggestion that, in the world of Hamlet, the son's duty to his father is higher than the law or the man's honour to obligate himself to it. I will explain this. The young Fortinbras is determined to take back his father's land eventhough it is undeniably and fairly won by Hamlet the King. This prompts the world (expressed through the words of Horatio here) to assume on him the same flaws that are his father's ("unimproved mettle", "emulate pride"). Yet, we learn later that the young Fortinbras is noble and wise. But it is his duty to revenge his father that has him put aside his obligations to honour the law to perform it. Thus, it is only through the duty of a son to his father that the ghost can most expect help no matter what. YET, it still has to test Hamlet. TEST. And even after Hamlet has agreed to perform, it still has to monitor his actions.

How, then, can it trust the general "Danes" for its onerous task?

The reason why it would not ask the Queen was explained in my first post: it wants the Queen to be prick'd and stung by the thorns of heaven too. And her help for revenge would redeem her and prevent this punishment. And, even if this was overlooked, the Queen is already deemed to be without "virtue" in the first conversation the ghost has with Hamlet. I will quote again:

"But virtue, as it never will be moved,
Though lewdness court it in a shape of heaven,
So lust, though to a radiant angel link'd.
Will sate itself in a celestial bed,
And prey on garbage."
Thus, she is not to be trusted.

The reason why it did not tell Hamlet not to kill Polonius is because that event does not affect its goal whatsoever. In fact, it aids it. Only after killing Polonius, Hamlet has blood on his hands for the first time; and, more than that, it is for the cause of revenge (Hamlet thought he was killing Claudius). Thus, it is arguable that only after this point that Hamlet is fully committed to the task set by his murdered father. Indeed, appears after the event a philosophy not from before:

"For this same lord,
I do repent: but Heaven hath pleas'd it so,
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister."
and

"I must be cruel, only to be kind"
For the first time, Hamlet has to reason his own murderous action, and he does not fail. Before this event (the killing of Polonius), the closest Hamlet gets to acting upon his dead father’s request is to stand and watch as Claudius confesses to his sins right in front of him unaware of his presence. This is a break-through in his quest; and there is no reason why the ghost should prevent that from happening.

So now, Regit, if you're so smart you answer my questions which I'll repeat here again:

I really would like to see your answers, mister smarty-pants. You can accuse me of being smart, Virgil (an accusation I would humbly deny); but you cannot accuse me of inserting that I am smart. When did I? In fact I even stated clearly that "I do not say that I am wiser or more knowing". You are the one who implied that, because you read Hamlet before I was born, I have to assume, without any evidence, that you know what you're talking about. That doesn't work in my idea of a discussion.

First "snot-*** kid", and now "mister smarty-pants"? Do you think our age difference allows you to speak to me in that tone? I must remind you that respect, at least in our case if not in all cases, can only be a mutual understanding. I have already said that I did not mean to attack your person.

Logos

10-07-2006, 03:38 PM

Hey, I've been reading Shakespeare and Hamlet before you were even born. ...
You shouldn't be such a snot-*** kid all your life.

I really would like to see your answers, mister smarty-pants.
Not really 'helpful' to your end of the discussion.

Virgil

10-07-2006, 03:43 PM

You would allow yourself to be critical before attempting to analyse (if you have on your own time, you would understand that it is important to make that clear). None of your previous posts amount to anything more than mere statements; when I, as a reader, naturally demand explanation and analysis.

Let me explain my visceral reaction to your recent posts. It started with those sentences. Before those sentences I was humoursly engaging with you and the subject. I read those sentences as having a supercilious tone, actually quite snobbish. None of my statements amount to much BUT YOU ARE CRITICAL. Perhaps it just came across that way and I reacted. I'll assume now you didn't mean it to come out that way.

So you're saying that there is more than meets the eye with this statement from the ghost:

Ghost
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.
OK, but rather convenient.

The reason why it would not ask the Queen was explained in my first post: it wants the Queen to be prick'd and stung by the thorns of heaven too.
But why does the ghost stop Hamlet from emotionally torturing the Queen in that bedroom scene?

The reason why it did not tell Hamlet not to kill Polonius is because that event does not affect its goal whatsoever. In fact, it aids it. Only after killing Polonius, Hamlet has blood on his hands for the first time; and, more than that, it is for the cause of revenge (Hamlet thought he was killing Claudius). Thus, it is arguable that only after this point that Hamlet was fully committed to the task set by his murdered father.
And have Hamlet doomed to hell for the murder? What do you mean only after this point he is fully committed? He just stuck a sword into Polonious thinking he was the King. No, I think this is a weak argument.

And what happens to the ghost after the middle of the play, when Shakespeare doesn't need him for dramatic purposes any more? Where is the ghost to guide Hamlet through all the difficulties of the revenge scenes, such as the killing of Polonious? But he shows up to stop Hamlet from arguing with his mother. The totality of the conveniences and the absence of the ghost from the middle of the play on when Shakespeare no longer needs him, leads me to conclude that the ghost is there more for Shakespeare's convenience as a dramatist than for any real thematic reason.

First "snot-*** kid", and now "mister smarty-pants"? Do you think our age difference allows you to speak to me in that tone? I must remind you that respect, at least in our case if not in all cases, can only be a mutual understanding. I have already said that I did not mean to attack your person.

I explained why I reacted the way I did. I apologize for my tone and reaction. You are a smart young man. We are only electronically connected, so I can only virtually offer you my hand to shake.

ShoutGrace

10-07-2006, 04:44 PM

Is it unreasonable on my part to take into account only what I can read and learn?

Absolutely. :D

You just aren't trying hard enough, Regit. ;)

But why does the ghost stop Hamlet from emotionally torturing the Queen in that bedroom scene?

Both the Ghost and Regit have explained this already, I believe. Furthermore:

“Hamlet indeed has spoken daggers in his “shenting” of Gertrude. But when the Ghost appears and not only rebukes him for procrastination but also urges him to “step between [Gertrude] and her fighting soul” (113), Hamlet seems to be aware that he has violated the Ghost’s earlier admonition – tainting his mind by striving against his mother, rather than lending her to heaven.”

What do you mean only after this point he is fully committed? He just stuck a sword into Polonious thinking he was the King. No, I think this is a weak argument.

How do you interpret the following lines?

“But heaven hath pleased it so,
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.”

“I must be cruel only to be kind.” (Does this sound like something the pre-murder Hamlet would say?)

And what happens to the ghost after the middle of the play, when Shakespeare doesn't need him for dramatic purposes any more?

Are we really expected to engage in hypothetical inquiries about what Ghosts might be up to when not intervening in the corporeal world?

Where is the ghost to guide Hamlet through all the difficulties of the revenge scenes, such as the killing of Polonious?

Again, are we supposed to theorize about what an immaterial Ghost, allegedly absconded from Purgatory, is doing with his time?

The totality of the conveniences and the absence of the ghost from the middle of the play on when Shakespeare no longer needs him, leads me to conclude that the ghost is there more for Shakespeare's convenience as a dramatist than for any real thematic reason.

Maybe we should then ask, “Why didn’t Shakespeare just have the Ghost become corporeal and kill Claudius?” Sure, it ruins a lot of thematic aspects of the play, but it is a lot simpler dramatically.

Virgil

10-07-2006, 04:57 PM

How do you interpret the following lines?

“But heaven hath pleased it so,
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.”

“I must be cruel only to be kind.” (Does this sound like something the pre-murder Hamlet would say?)

Yes, actually it is. Hamlet was a divinity student at Wittenburg, and "scurge and minister" is a religious argument. I don't have resources at my disposal, but it refers to the possibility that Hamlet is an evil minister of justice. Which is one of the possibilities for what the ghost is as well.

Are we really expected to engage in hypothetical inquiries about what Ghosts might be up to when not intervening in the corporeal world?
No, because that is not how Shakespeare sets up the world of the Hamlet play. He sets it up as the ghost wanting revenge, and that he can communicate with people, and that he can make himself visible. If the ghost violates some basic logical conclusions, then the audience has a right to pick it apart. You would do it for any movie that you see.

Again, are we supposed to theorize about what an immaterial Ghost, allegedly absconded from Purgatory, is doing with his time?
The ghost took the time to set the revenge in motion. Yes, it does mean something.

Maybe we should then ask, “Why didn’t Shakespeare just have the Ghost become corporeal and kill Claudius?” Sure, it ruins a lot of thematic aspects of the play, but it is a lot simpler dramatically
I take it that the world of the Hamlet play does not allow for that.

Look Hamlet is a great play. It is a great play in spite of some documented flaws.

Regit

10-08-2006, 10:19 AM

Yes, actually it is. Hamlet was a divinity student at Wittenburg, and "scurge and minister" is a religious argument. I don't have resources at my disposal, but it refers to the possibility that Hamlet is an evil minister of justice. Which is one of the possibilities for what the ghost is as well.
Correct, that it is an argument that Hamlet has learnt and not one that he has invented. Aren't they all? But the point I put accross was not about the origin of the argument that he uses, but to stress the fact that it is employed only after the killing of Polonius. Where, before this point in the play, is such an argument used? Hamlet always has it at his disposal, yet he would not use it before. He could kill Claudius given a chance and having the physical ability to do so (that, you argue, the ghost does not have) yet he would not before. After this point, he would.

What do you mean only after this point he is fully committed? He just stuck a sword into Polonious thinking he was the King. No, I think this is a weak argument.What point do you think I was talking about? Not the point where he rationalises his action, no. But the "sticking of the sword into Polonius" is itself the point, the turn of event where Hamlet has for the first time blood on his hand for the cause of revenge. The killing of Polonius is arguably the only action up until then that Hamlet has not comtemplated carefully, which resembles the decisiveness of his father that he does not normally have. It is a rash action, he misreads the plot (thinking Claudius was behind the curtain and not Polonius). Before that every plot they set up to try and spy on him has been read by him correctly: hiding in the closet, sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It also seems a rash action since he, though suspicious that Claudius is behind the curtain, initially does not really care whom it is that he had killed.

"Nay, I know not, is it the King?"
Later, he repents yet reasons: It seems that the act of hiding and intruding is enough to be killed:

"You wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell,
I took thee for thy better: take thy fortune,
Thou find'st to be too busy, is some danger."
If one makes it his business to intrude, it is up to fortune what happens to him, since what he intrudes upon may be very dangerous without his knowledge. Hamlet's reasons indeed apply perfectly for Polonius. But though it is his fortune that Polonius dies, it is still a punishable offence that Hamlet has comitted by killing him. The same would apply had Claudius been killed, thus answering the following:

And have Hamlet doomed to hell for the murder? It is a non-factor, for Hamlet would be doom'd anyway even if it were Claudius behind the curtain. Claudius' sin is not for Hamlet nor for the ghost to punish. Personal revenge is not an act tolerated by heaven, not in Hamlet's mind anyway.
After the killing of Polonius and only a moment, though of great consequences, of rash behaviour, Hamlet regains his reasons. But it is changed: "I must be cruel, only to be kind". Indeed, immediately after this event, Hamlet reveals that he has discovered another plot (the letters) and himself is going to react to it very differently from before:

"But I will delve one yard below their mines,
and blow them at the moon."
This time, those that wrong him will receive more than his criticism and contemplation of their sins. A revengeful soul is not a clean one. Thus to be a successful one, it is important to get one's hands dirty first. No, I don't think that it is a weak argument. The ghost's hands are already dirty, it does not hide it:

"Until the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg'd away."
Its cause may be just in its own mine; but that's it. And it is fully aware that Hamlet will also burn like itself for the tasks it asks of him. There's no reason for it to interfere with Polonius' death.

No, because that is not how Shakespeare sets up the world of the Hamlet play. He sets it up as the ghost wanting revenge, and that he can communicate with people, and that he can make himself visible. If the ghost violates some basic logical conclusions, then the audience has a right to pick it apart. You would do it for any movie that you see.
I am afraid it is not so. First of all, a ghost is an entity that exists only in theory. Thus the ghost in the play is only another theory and whatever happens cannot be deemed illogical. How are you going to argue, in the strict sense, that an action belongs to a ghost is illogical when the existence of the ghost alone is already illogical. You can't, the ghost is theoretical and so are its actions. There are no rules "set up" for the ghost but one that includes all actions belonging to it in the play. If, at the end, it appears and kills everybody (yes, even though that is a ridiculous possibility) that action, its meaning, purpose, and rules would also be included in, as you call it, the rule of the ghost. Thus, up for debate is not whether the ghost's actions are logical or illogical, but how to interpret them to fit the events and morality of the play. Personally, there is nothing wrong with the ghost as a character. And if I find it difficult to interpret something satisfyingly or to come to a logical conclusion, I would try harder. Yes, I know there are sources supporting what you say; but one ultimately has to be responsible for his own words. You say that the ghost is a flawed character; and it is your own insertion.

Virgil

10-08-2006, 09:31 PM

Correct, that it is an argument that Hamlet has learnt and not one that he has invented. Aren't they all? But the point I put accross was not about the origin of the argument that he uses, but to stress the fact that it is employed only after the killing of Polonius. Where, before this point in the play, is such an argument used? Hamlet always has it at his disposal, yet he would not use it before. He could kill Claudius given a chance and having the physical ability to do so (that, you argue, the ghost does not have) yet he would not before. After this point, he would.

What point do you think I was talking about? Not the point where he rationalises his action, no. But the "sticking of the sword into Polonius" is itself the point, the turn of event where Hamlet has for the first time blood on his hand for the cause of revenge. The killing of Polonius is arguably the only action up until then that Hamlet has not comtemplated carefully, which resembles the decisiveness of his father that he does not normally have. It is a rash action, he misreads the plot (thinking Claudius was behind the curtain and not Polonius). Before that every plot they set up to try and spy on him has been read by him correctly: hiding in the closet, sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It also seems a rash action since he, though suspicious that Claudius is behind the curtain, initially does not really care whom it is that he had killed.

"Nay, I know not, is it the King?"
Later, he repents yet reasons: It seems that the act of hiding and intruding is enough to be killed:

"You wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell,
I took thee for thy better: take thy fortune,
Thou find'st to be too busy, is some danger."
If one makes it his business to intrude, it is up to fortune what happens to him, since what he intrudes upon may be very dangerous without his knowledge. Hamlet's reasons indeed apply perfectly for Polonius. But though it is his fortune that Polonius dies, it is still a punishable offence that Hamlet has comitted by killing him. The same would apply had Claudius been killed, thus answering the following:
It is a non-factor, for Hamlet would be doom'd anyway even if it were Claudius behind the curtain. Claudius' sin is not for Hamlet nor for the ghost to punish. Personal revenge is not an act tolerated by heaven, not in Hamlet's mind anyway.
After the killing of Polonius and only a moment, though of great consequences, of rash behaviour, Hamlet regains his reasons. But it is changed: "I must be cruel, only to be kind". Indeed, immediately after this event, Hamlet reveals that he has discovered another plot (the letters) and himself is going to react to it very differently from before:

"But I will delve one yard below their mines,
and blow them at the moon."
This time, those that wrong him will receive more than his criticism and contemplation of their sins. A revengeful soul is not a clean one. Thus to be a successful one, it is important to get one's hands dirty first. No, I don't think that it is a weak argument. The ghost's hands are already dirty, it does not hide it:

"Until the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg'd away."
Its cause may be just in its own mine; but that's it. And it is fully aware that Hamlet will also burn like itself for the tasks it asks of him. There's no reason for it to interfere with Polonius' death.
Nice discourse. But we are going astray of the issue. Why doesn't the ghost focus Hamlet's actions on carrying out the revenge? He starts him up and lets him go, and yet he can stop Hamlet from abusing his mother. All willy-nilly.

I am afraid it is not so. First of all, a ghost is an entity that exists only in theory. Thus the ghost in the play is only another theory and whatever happens cannot be deemed illogical.
:confused: :confused: I have no idea what any of that means. In theory? I think the ghost is quite real.

How are you going to argue, in the strict sense, that an action belongs to a ghost is illogical when the existence of the ghost alone is already illogical.
Not within the world of the play. A sci-fi flick has Martians. Of course in our world they don't exist. But in the world of the movie they are a fact and logical.

You can't, the ghost is theoretical and so are its actions. There are no rules "set up" for the ghost but one that includes all actions belonging to it in the play.
Oh yes there are. Any author sets up the rules within his work and must be consistent.

If, at the end, it appears and kills everybody (yes, even though that is a ridiculous possibility
Quite right that is rediculous. Why? Because Shakespeare has established rules at the beginning of the play.

Personally, there is nothing wrong with the ghost as a character. And if I find it difficult to interpret something satisfyingly or to come to a logical conclusion, I would try harder. Yes, I know there are sources supporting what you say; but one ultimately has to be responsible for his own words. You say that the ghost is a flawed character; and it is your own insertion.
I never said the ghost's character is flawed. I said the play is flawed by the way Shakespeare uses the ghost.

Look, you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. I am going to make one last attempt to convince anyone in posterity that might open this thread. The fact that Shakespeare has a ghost enter at the beginning of the play, come up in the middle, and then never brings him up again, despite situations where he can provide guidence to resolving his motivation of revenge, smacks of authorial convenience. Why does the ghost not come back after the middle of the play, when the author no longer needs him? You never answer that. You can't answer that. It is a motif that is left hanging, and strikingly so. If in a sci-fi flick if martians start a war between nations at the beginning of the movie, and are never seen or mentioned again, and we just see the war and earthling soldiers, then it is a structural flaw to the movie. The martians were just a convenience to start the war. We forget about the ghost because Shakespeare has great characters, intense plot, and sublime language. But he leaves that motif hanging.

Regit

10-08-2006, 09:50 PM

Look, you're not going to convince me
Point well-taken.

kindlybeaver

10-10-2006, 05:12 PM

Regit

10-11-2006, 02:11 PM

Just a theory, and maybe it's been mentioned, but could it be that, at first, the Ghost appears to everyone as it is there, in an ethereal form. However, during Hamlet's confrontation of Gertrude, he may be imagining it, due to his encroaching madness. This of course depends on whether you believe that Hamlet has actually gone mad in the play, or whether it is still an act.

It is an interesting thought. Though "enter ghost" may indicate that there is a ghost in the scene. The entire audience would see a ghost as Hamlet does, leaving Gertrude the odd one out. And I never even doubt that Hamlet might be mad (though is that a necessary condition for your theory?). But I think that there could certainly be a strong argument for your theory. Would you like to produce it? I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

ShoutGrace

10-11-2006, 08:25 PM

Thus, it is arguable that only after this point that Hamlet was fully committed to the task set by his murdered father.

I remain curious about this point. I believe he was much changed, indeed (as I said above). I’ve seen it argued, however, that Hamlet still has “fighting in his heart” up until Act V scene II. Horatio offers to “forestall” the fencing match, whereupon Hamlet recites the following:

“Not a whit, we defy augury: there's a special
providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now,
'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is't to leave betimes?”

“Hamlet now seems to have resolved all doubts as to whether he functions as minister or as scourge. Finally he no longer fears death or what may await him after death.”

C.S. Lewis described Hamlet’s world in the following manner (he references the above passage):

“The world of Hamlet is a world where one has lost one’s way. The Prince also has no doubt lost his, and we can tell the precise moment at which he finds it again.”

Its cause may be just in its own mine; but that's it. And it is fully aware that Hamlet will also burn like itself for the tasks it asks of him.

That was one of my stumbling blocks in the play. I lightly concluded that the Ghost 'hoped' that Hamlet would later confess and be exculpated from his crimes.

Either that, or the Ghost is just too bitter to care about the effects on his son, rather caring more about the vengeance. Which disagrees mildly with the image we get of him from other parts of the play (characters, comments, etc.), I think.

Not within the world of the play. A sci-fi flick has Martians. Of course in our world they don't exist. But in the world of the movie they are a fact and logical.

Who says they don’t exist? :alien: :alien: :D

Why does the ghost not come back after the middle of the play, when the author no longer needs him?

Surely there are a nearly unlimited number of possible reasons for this, though, right? You’re saying that your theory is the most probable?

Virgil

10-11-2006, 08:59 PM

Surely there are a nearly unlimited number of possible reasons for this, though, right? You’re saying that your theory is the most probable?

I had finished with my argument, but the other day I recalled this in the critical commentary. Observe this famous soliloquy:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
Notice these lines: "But that the dread of something after death,/The undiscover'd country from whose bourn/No traveller returns" The place where no traveler returns? Well the ghost has returned. Shakespeare has forgot his own the rules of the Hamlet world he has created. The ghost has returned to the human world and Hamlet has very much seen it. Could he had forgotten his own father's ghost? No Shakespeare has forgotten, because the ghost is a convenience. Shakespeare himself has forgotten it.

And do not credit me with any brilliant insight. I didn't think this up. It's in the critical commentary.

Regit

10-21-2006, 12:37 AM

I remain curious about this point. I believe he was much changed, indeed (as I said above). I’ve seen it argued, however, that Hamlet still has “fighting in his heart” up until Act V scene II. Horatio offers to “forestall” the fencing match, whereupon Hamlet recites the following:

“Not a whit, we defy augury: there's a special
providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now,
'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is't to leave betimes?”

“Hamlet now seems to have resolved all doubts as to whether he functions as minister or as scourge. Finally he no longer fears death or what may await him after death.”

C.S. Lewis described Hamlet’s world in the following manner (he references the above passage):

“The world of Hamlet is a world where one has lost one’s way. The Prince also has no doubt lost his, and we can tell the precise moment at which he finds it again.”
I agree with your insertion, that the change in Hamlet's mentality is a breakthrough, but there are still endless doubts in his mind. But, then, I don't think these doubts ever go away.

"The readiness is all" may even imply that he is still not convinced. The readiness is all, yet, regardless of the readiness, the fall of the sparrow is inevitable. So, maybe, he realises now that more and more reasons would do no good: readiness is not the realisation of a wisdom that he has long searched for, but simply an acceptance despite reason. But, none the less, only with sufficient reason can the "fighting in his heart" stop, and it, thus, has not. Maybe it is not that he has found his way, but accepts that he would never find it and that getting on with his goal is the more realistic goal.

Indeed, we are not told here why Hamlet has finally succumbed to his fate, other than because it is inevitable. And without his struggles to find a right path, there is not much left for him to do but to complete his task and die: hence, he speaks that way. And because I firmly believe in the cause of Hamlet's struggles and his sense of justice, I do not think that this surrender can be viewed as "finding [his way] again". His quest for understanding is a great one, only his life does not allow it. Thus, I do not agree with C S Lewis' insertion above.

That was one of my stumbling blocks in the play. I lightly concluded that the Ghost 'hoped' that Hamlet would later confess and be exculpated from his crimes. I found that the only words that might support this idea are: "taint not thy mind". And even these words can be interpreted in the other direction. In fact, in Act III when the ghost appears, it mentions two things: Hamlet's blunted purpose and Gertrude. It seems to be a repetition of earlier commands: "Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught", which further convinces me that "taint not thy mind" here is a command to Hamlet not to change his purpose (revenge), and not a reminder that Hamlet should not let his mind be dirty. But I am not denying the other possiblity completely.

Either that, or the Ghost is just too bitter to care about the effects on his son, rather caring more about the vengeance. Which disagrees mildly with the image we get of him from other parts of the play (characters, comments, etc.), I think. Maybe. But maybe it does care, yet still decides that the revenge tradition is more important. It is fully aware of the consequences of sins, being an example itself - surely, having been punished for its sins, it must know what they are.
I think that the ghost's approach to persuading Hamlet changes:

"If thou didst ever thy dear father love
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murther."
Here 'love' is to be Hamlet's reason, yet...

"If thou hast nature in thee bear it not"
...directs that Hamlet's constitution and sense of duty to his father should be the motive. Is it just listing things that might obligate Hamlet to its plan?
Which leads me to believe that, to the ghost, it is more important to achieve its goal, than to have a defined reason for it (at least this specific goal). This especially contradicts with Hamlet's mentality, who curses himself for the lack of his father's resolution.
And I think the comments on Hamlet the King's character only supports this view. Most of them come from Hamlet, and praise him as a man (in many places stresses masculinity): We see the dead King compared to mythology figures such as Jove, Mars, and Mercury: all masculine figures that Hamlet deems himself not to be, as he remarks on the difference between himself and Hercules (Hercules very readily takes revenge on wrongs done against him, often without much deliberation - so does Jove). And by the context of the comparison, we understand that Hamlet deems Hercules' quality good, and his own, bad. So we see that Hamlet the King is praised as a "man" indeed: but the nature of these praises does not prevent but in fact does promote the Ghost's choice of action, one that would "give the world assurance of a man."
Furthermore, notice how Hamlet does not react to Horatio's "goodly King" comment. Instead he ignores it completely with the "he was a man, take him for all in all" remark. And is "I shall not look upon his like again" necessarily praising? What were these "foul deeds" that the dead King has done? We are never told - Jove has endless foul deeds, often associated with lust and anger, as Hercules, his son.

toni

10-31-2006, 01:01 PM

Oooohh.. Looks like Virgil ran out of things to say.
Interesting argument, that one with King Hamlet's ghost. Regit explained it clearly and precisely. I actually felt like I was listening to an English Professor.
Hamlet is my favorite Shakespeare play, I never get tired reading it over and over but I never thought of questioning why Hamlet is the only one who could speak to the ghost..

If A is success in life, then A is equals to X+Y+Z.
Work is X; Y is play; and Z is keeping your mouth shut.
-Albert Einstein

Virgil

10-31-2006, 02:31 PM

Oooohh.. Looks like Virgil ran out of things to say.

I've made might case. I don't see anything that refutes my assertion that Shakespeare drops the ghost mid way because he doesn't find him useful. Compare the use of the ghost with the use of the witches in MacBeth. There Shakespeare gets it right.

I'm putting forth that the way Shakespeare uses the ghost is a structural flaw to the play. Regit's arguments (and good arguments, don't get me wrong; he's trying to do his best) are rationalizations through character's words. Those tell me that Shakespeare understood the flaw (remember he inherited the story, he didn't make it up himself) and tried to soften it. But a structural flaw in a work cannot be washed away with rationalizations. Like I described in the story with the martians and the war up above some where. Structure takes precendence over rationales. It is much more critical.

Interesting argument, that one with King Hamlet's ghost. Regit explained it clearly and precisely. I actually felt like I was listening to an English Professor.
Hahaha, LOL. You just put the kiss of death to him. That probably means he's definitely wrong. I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing, unless those few who were writers themselves. And for your information I have a Master's degree in lit, which is pretty much useless.

Hamlet is my favorite Shakespeare play, I never get tired reading it over and over but I never thought of questioning why Hamlet is the only one who could speak to the ghost..
It is a great play, despite it's structural flaw.

I agree with your insertion, that the change in Hamlet's mentality is a breakthrough, but there are still endless doubts in his mind. But, then, I don't think these doubts ever go away.

"The readiness is all" may even imply that he is still not convinced. The readiness is all, yet, regardless of the readiness, the fall of the sparrow is inevitable. So, maybe, he realises now that more and more reasons would do no good: readiness is not the realisation of a wisdom that he has long searched for, but simply an acceptance despite reason.

So make up your mind. At first you claim, with so much confidence I may add, that Hamlet crosses a threshold when he kills Polonius. Now you say he may not still be convinced. "So maybe" you say? It doesn't strike me as someone who is confident in his assertions. You sound as ambivalent as Hamlet. Can't make up your mind? :D

Regit

11-02-2006, 11:53 PM

So make up your mind. At first you claim, with so much confidence I may add, that Hamlet crosses a threshold when he kills Polonius. Now you say he may not still be convinced. "So maybe" you say? It doesn't strike me as someone who is confident in his assertions. You sound as ambivalent as Hamlet. Can't make up your mind? :D

O dear, am I in trouble or am I in trouble: the great critic of our forum who looks upon literature professors with disdain has turned his critical eyes at me. What am I to do! :)

Virgil, with all due respect, I am afraid your logic has betrayed you once more. Either that or you didn't really read what I wrote. Let us review:

I said:
I agree with your insertion, that the change in Hamlet's mentality is a breakthrough, but there are still endless doubts in his mind. This means that I agreed to an insertion, and that insertion was that: "the change in Hamlet's mentality is a breakthrough, but there are still endless doubts in his mind." This is an addition to my argument earlier:

What point do you think I was talking about? Not the point where he rationalises his action, no. But the "sticking of the sword into Polonius" is itself the point, the turn of event where Hamlet has for the first time blood on his hand for the cause of revenge. The killing of Polonius is arguably the only action up until then that Hamlet has not comtemplated carefully, which resembles the decisiveness of his father that he does not normally have. It is a rash action, he misreads the plot (thinking Claudius was behind the curtain and not Polonius). Before that every plot they set up to try and spy on him has been read by him correctly: hiding in the closet, sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It also seems a rash action since he, though suspicious that Claudius is behind the curtain, initially does not really care whom it is that he had killed.

"Nay, I know not, is it the King?"
Later, he repents yet reasons: It seems that the act of hiding and intruding is enough to be killed:

"You wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell,
I took thee for thy better: take thy fortune,
Thou find'st to be too busy, is some danger."
If one makes it his business to intrude, it is up to fortune what happens to him, since what he intrudes upon may be very dangerous without his knowledge. Hamlet's reasons indeed apply perfectly for Polonius. But though it is his fortune that Polonius dies, it is still a punishable offence that Hamlet has comitted by killing him. The same would apply had Claudius been killed, thus answering the following:

"And have Hamlet doomed to hell for the murder?" - Originally Posted by Virgil

It is a non-factor, for Hamlet would be doom'd anyway even if it were Claudius behind the curtain. Claudius' sin is not for Hamlet nor for the ghost to punish. Personal revenge is not an act tolerated by heaven, not in Hamlet's mind anyway.
After the killing of Polonius and only a moment, though of great consequences, of rash behaviour, Hamlet regains his reasons. But it is changed: "I must be cruel, only to be kind". Indeed, immediately after this event, Hamlet reveals that he has discovered another plot (the letters) and himself is going to react to it very differently from before:

"But I will delve one yard below their mines,
and blow them at the moon."

This time, those that wrong him will receive more than his criticism and contemplation of their sins. A revengeful soul is not a clean one. Thus to be a successful one, it is important to get one's hands dirty first. No, I don't think that it is a weak argument. The ghost's hands are already dirty, it does not hide it:

"Until the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg'd away."
Its cause may be just in its own mine; but that's it. And it is fully aware that Hamlet will also burn like itself for the tasks it asks of him. There's no reason for it to interfere with Polonius' death.

I have highlighted some of the key points to improve lazy-reader-friendliness.

Now, please tell me, which of the points of my argument suggests to you that I have forbidden the possibility that Hamlet might still have doubts? Is it the argument that he defends his murderous act despite knowing that it is wrong? Is it the argument that his action at the time was a rash one? Is it the one that mentions his contemplation as to whether he is a minister or a scourge? Is it the one that he continues to reason? Which is it?
Does the decision to finally act upon his revenge deny Hamlet of having any more doubts? Surely it doesn't. I'm replying to your post right now, my fingers typing, but my mind is clustered with doubts about my action: "is it worth my effort?"

No, there is no "maybe" in my argument in the sense that you suggested. Although I do have a problem making up my mind. I don't know whether to make further responses to your posts in this discussion. If you are so sure that I can't convince you Virgil, why are you still asking questions? Is your aim, then, to ridicule having no interest in the content of my answer? If you ask questions (and, in effect, demand explanations) and at the same time announce that you can never be convinced, then surely one of those purposes is not genuine. So again, with all due respect, please let your next argument move beyond introduction.

And let me clarify that I have the most humbling respect for literature professors (as to all professors) and for the education of literature. They can be utterly useful for those who respect them and have access to them. Which is why, in my diminutive usefulness, I deny toni's kind compliments, and not for the reasons you suggested.

Virgil

11-03-2006, 01:17 AM

After the killing of Polonius and only a moment, though of great consequences, of rash behaviour, Hamlet regains his reasons. But it is changed: "I must be cruel, only to be kind".
That is what you said, and that is quite clearly saying that Hamlet has crossed a threshold. And the quote you highlight out of Hamlet's mouth along with it (and you say from Hamlet's rational mind, not rash) is of someone who has quite clearly made up his mind.

I don't know whether to make further responses to your posts in this discussion. If you are so sure that I can't convince you Virgil, why are you still asking questions?
Yeah, perhaps it's best we both ignore each other. Before this thread I happened to like you. But your snobbish and frankly disrespectful post you made up above that I pointed out, and after I went half way with an apology and even offered you my hand to shake, and you didn't come back half way with an apology on your side, I don't have any fond feelings toward you.

kilted exile

11-03-2006, 01:41 AM

Notice these lines: "But that the dread of something after death,/The undiscover'd country from whose bourn/No traveller returns" The place where no traveler returns? Well the ghost has returned. Shakespeare has forgot his own the rules of the Hamlet world he has created. The ghost has returned to the human world and Hamlet has very much seen it. Could he had forgotten his own father's ghost? No Shakespeare has forgotten, because the ghost is a convenience. Shakespeare himself has forgotten it.

Ok, I am probably not understanding something (which is quite often the case :D ), but I do not see these comments as a rule created by Shakespeare, they are the thoughts racing through someones head after he sees a ghost. He is questioning how it is possible for a dead man to walk when everything he knows and has ever been told about the world says it should not happen.

Regit

11-03-2006, 06:45 PM

That is what you said, and that is quite clearly saying that Hamlet has crossed a threshold. And the quote you highlight out of Hamlet's mouth along with it (and you say from Hamlet's rational mind, not rash) is of someone who has quite clearly made up his mind. ... Yes, he has made up his mind to act on his revenge,which doesn't stop him from having doubts about it - an argument that you have not touched: "He regains reason", means that he is no longer rash but is thinking and contemplating like before, which increases the possibility of doubt. A rational mind is rational because it has the ability to rationalise possibilities. It is during his rash action that he does not have doubts, which is why he curses his difference to Hercules.

Apologise? Did I not say "I did not mean to offend your person" a more than once? Then, what do I have to apologise for, trying to discuss literature?

And why is this crooked diplomacy always the focus of your response? Can't you focus on giving your argument a body first? You can convince me yet, since I am open to genuine thoughts; but you have not once tried to. I think that the discussion of Literature is the best diplomacy here, not handshakes or fond feelings. And that, I have offered you plenty. And that, you have not come close to halfway.

Janine

11-03-2006, 10:17 PM

I wonder if Gertrude cannot see the ghost since she is not open mentally to the experience, such as the way people claim today some can see spirits and some cannot. Maybe Gertrude's guilt at marrying with the uncle is preventing it or maybe the ghost himself is not sanctioning it - He commands Hamlet to do the mother no harm. He loved the mother in life, was not hostile towards her, after death. Only Hamlet harbors the intense anger in the bedroom scene, where he bitterly shows her the two portraits - his uncle and his father - and compares how one is evil and one virtuous. To Jamesian I reply: Horatio was often addressed by other characters, see the grave scene when he is asked to attend to Hamlet by Claudius, also when he received a note from Hamlet a guard brings it to him, and many, many times, throughout the play, he has interaction with various characters. In the opening scene all three actors you mention, have interaction and verbal exchange with each other. It is only on the viewing of the ghost the second time that Hamlet is present, along with the three. How then could they be a figment of Hamlet's imagination?

Virgil

11-03-2006, 11:31 PM

... Yes, he has made up his mind to act on his revenge,which doesn't stop him from having doubts about it - an argument that you have not touched: "He regains reason", means that he is no longer rash but is thinking and contemplating like before, which increases the possibility of doubt. A rational mind is rational because it has the ability to rationalise possibilities. It is during his rash action that he does not have doubts, which is why he curses his difference to Hercules.

Actually here is the more definitive statement you made on this:

after killing Polonius, Hamlet has blood on his hands for the first time; and, more than that, it is for the cause of revenge (Hamlet thought he was killing Claudius). Thus, it is arguable that only after this point that Hamlet is fully committed to the task set by his murdered father. Indeed, appears after the event a philosophy not from before:

"For this same lord,
I do repent: but Heaven hath pleas'd it so,
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister."
and

"I must be cruel, only to be kind"
For the first time, Hamlet has to reason his own murderous action, and he does not fail.
No where here is it implied or suggested that Hamlet has doubts still after the Polonious murder. "Fully commtted" as you say is just the opposite of having doubts. It strikes me as outside human nature to be fully committed and still have doubts.

As to this more important matter, I went through the thread and found this:

[QUOTE=Regit]And, to be clear, I never meant to make an attack on your person. Such is the nature of an argument. I was once told: "That's ok if you disagree with me. We disagree quite often and vigorously here on lit net. We don't hold grudges in our disagreements, at least I don't."

You are correct. You did apologize and I must have missed it. I hereby humbly apologize for yesterday's comment.

And also as I went through the thread, I noticed how many times I complimented you, both before and after I got ticked off. I meant my compiments.

As to whether the use of Hamlet's ghost is flawed, forget it. We disagree and we made our points.

Ok, I am probably not understanding something (which is quite often the case :D ), but I do not see these comments as a rule created by Shakespeare, they are the thoughts racing through someones head after he sees a ghost. He is questioning how it is possible for a dead man to walk when everything he knows and has ever been told about the world says it should not happen.

What I'm trying to say Kilt, is that in this soliloquy, Shakespeare has Hamlet say in essence that no one comes back from the dead. But that's not true. Hamlet's father as ghost has come back from the dead. My point is, and I'm not the only person that's brought this point up, Shakespeare in writing this forgot about the ghost.

kilted exile

11-04-2006, 12:52 AM

Virgil

11-04-2006, 12:59 AM

Ok, then this is where the difference is: I do not see that soliloquy as rules created by Shakespeare. I see it only as the confused ravings of Hamlet. Yes Hamlet says in essence that nothing comes back from the dead, but it is more as a question he is asking himself as to how if that is true (like he was always taught) his father could be there now.

I am probably not making myself very clear.

No you are. I think you're saying that Hamlet is just spouting off and not thinking about the ghost. Normal people would say what Hamlet says since no one has seen a ghost in reality. However, if Shakespeare were conscious of it, I don't think he would have had Hamlet say that. It's pretty hard to believe that Hamlet would have forgoten the ghost of his father. I just think that Shakespeare forgot his rules. He was human you know. He did have plays with flaws. :D

msdirector

11-04-2006, 04:41 PM

What I'm trying to say Kilt, is that in this soliloquy, Shakespeare has Hamlet say in essence that no one comes back from the dead. But that's not true. Hamlet's father as ghost has come back from the dead. My point is, and I'm not the only person that's brought this point up, Shakespeare in writing this forgot about the ghost.

Hi Virgil...

I understand what you are saying here, and I know others agree with you, but I look at it differently. I believe Shakespeare knew exactly what he was saying and so did Hamlet.

Hamlet says that death is "The undiscovered country, from whose bourn / No traveller returns". His complaint is that there is no one to tell us what is on the other side of death, and that fear of the unknown is what keeps us from actively pursuing that relief from this world's cares and troubles.

Hamlet (and Shakespeare) is right. No one dies and then returns to life. The ghostly apparition he has seen is not his father returned from the grave. The Ghost isn't his father brought to life again, nor is he resurrected. The Ghost himself says:

"I am thy father's spirit,
Doomed for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away."

In other words, he is in Purgatory. It is only his spirit that Hamlet sees, and while the Ghost hints at what that may be like and what Hamlet's reaction to such revelations might be, he specifically says, "I am forbidden / To tell the secrets of my prison-house". And even if he could tell, he could only speak of what it is like in Purgatory, not what it like in Heaven or Hell when his time in Purgatory is over.

The ghostly apparition that Hamlet sees is not his father, but rather only a spirit and speaks specifically only of things that happened in this world, not the next. Additionally, Hamlet is still, at this point, unsure whether the ghost is, indeed, the spirit of his father! He says just moments before that:

"The spirit that I have seen
May be the devil, and the devil hat power
T'assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps
Out of my weakness and my melancholy
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me."

This spirit he has seen may not be his father after all, but a devil come to trick him into a damning action of his own - the hatred and killing of his uncle, now the king, Claudius.

So Hamlet's speculations on life, death, suicide, action and inaction are completely valid. While he has seen what appears to be the ghost of his father, he is tormented by the thought that it might not have been, and that even if it was, the Ghost is neither his father alive and returned from the grave nor has it told him anything about the world to come. His philosophical dilemma, that fear of the unknown "puzzles the will, / And make us ratehr bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that we know not of", remains a valid question.

Virgil

11-04-2006, 07:05 PM

So Hamlet's speculations on life, death, suicide, action and inaction are completely valid. While he has seen what appears to be the ghost of his father, he is tormented by the thought that it might not have been, and that even if it was, the Ghost is neither his father alive and returned from the grave nor has it told him anything about the world to come. His philosophical dilemma, that fear of the unknown "puzzles the will, / And make us ratehr bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that we know not of", remains a valid question.

Oh I never said his speculations were invalid. I'm just saying it's a slip on Shakepeare's part that a traveler to the unknown has come back. As to whether the ghost is someone other than his father, we the audience know that it is. We have to assume that. That would be a cheap trick if it weren't. If you say that Hamlet is unsure, well unsure works both ways. He's got to be at least open to the possibility that it is; so then Hamlet would not make that statement if he were conscious of the ghost.

What do you think about the argument we have been having as to Shakespeare's use of the ghost? I'm not sure anyone else is agreeing with me. Based on your statement above, you probably disagree with me too.

ShoutGrace

11-04-2006, 08:24 PM

Could he had forgotten his own father's ghost? No Shakespeare has forgotten, because the ghost is a convenience. Shakespeare himself has forgotten it.

Okay, first off I want to have a few things clarified. If Shakespeare did in fact forget the Ghost's existence and his relevance in the play (something which I dispute and will discuss later if neccessary), are you using the situation as evidence that Shakespeare created the Ghost merely for dramatic purposes? It seems that is what you are saying, but clarity is important here.

I'm just saying it's a slip on Shakepeare's part that a traveler to the unknown has come back.

How do you define “coming back?”

As to whether the ghost is someone other than his father, we the audience know that it is. We have to assume that.

We don't know and we cannot assume. That is part of what keeps the audience integrated in the play. Hamlet cannot be sure that the Ghost is his father (as he reiterates) and neither can we.

He's got to be at least open to the possibility that it is; so then Hamlet would not make that statement if he were conscious of the ghost.

That seems valid to me, at present, which is why the interpretation of the phraseology of death as a bourne “from which no traveller returns” is important.

This is something that msdirector is hitting on with the following:

Hamlet says that death is "The undiscovered country, from whose bourn / No traveller returns". His complaint is that there is no one to tell us what is on the other side of death, and that fear of the unknown is what keeps us from actively pursuing that relief from this world's cares and troubles.

Hamlet (and Shakespeare) is right. No one dies and then returns to life. The ghostly apparition he has seen is not his father returned from the grave. The Ghost isn't his father brought to life again, nor is he resurrected. The Ghost himself says:

"I am thy father's spirit,
Doomed for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away."

In other words, he is in Purgatory. It is only his spirit that Hamlet sees, and while the Ghost hints at what that may be like and what Hamlet's reaction to such revelations might be, he specifically says, "I am forbidden / To tell the secrets of my prison-house". And even if he could tell, he could only speak of what it is like in Purgatory, not what it like in Heaven or Hell when his time in Purgatory is over.

I wasn't going to argue it quite like that but I'm happy with using this explanation as is for the moment. I'm glad you took the time to contribute, msdirector. Hope you stick around the forums. :D

Regit, I've finished my final midterm and have one more paper to write (a baby, 5 pages) by Monday so next week I'll try to formulate some halfway decent responses to yours. :nod:

Virgil

11-04-2006, 10:20 PM

Okay, first off I want to have a few things clarified. If Shakespeare did in fact forget the Ghost's existence and his relevance in the play (something which I dispute and will discuss later if neccessary), are you using the situation as evidence that Shakespeare created the Ghost merely for dramatic purposes? It seems that is what you are saying, but clarity is important here.

Yes, yes, yes! :crash: ;)

How do you define “coming back?”
Once you have died, you are now in a different world, something that none of us, if it exists, have any knowledge of. Hamlt's father has entered that world, and now is back to the human world.

We don't know and we cannot assume. That is part of what keeps the audience integrated in the play. Hamlet cannot be sure that the Ghost is his father (as he reiterates) and neither can we.
And if this is a central motif of the play, where is it ever resolved? Like I've said a million times the ghost is dropped mid way and never picked up. You can't just leave this hanging.

That seems valid to me, at present, which is why the interpretation of the phraseology of death as a bourne “from which no traveller returns” is important.
Thank you. Somebody agrees with something I've said. :rolleyes:

Are you trying to find significance in the elocution "I am thy father's spirit" versus a catagorical statement such as "I am your father"? and then
In other words, he is in Purgatory. It is only his spirit that Hamlet seesI know of no religious doctrine that would make this disctintion. I can't imagine Shakespeare inventing his own religious principles in this play, especially since it never gets fleshed out as an idea.

ShoutGrace

11-04-2006, 11:15 PM

Yes, yes, yes! :crash: ;)

Just making sure. :D

Virgil

11-04-2006, 11:20 PM

Just making sure. :D

By the way, I forgot to respond to this:

are you using the situation as evidence that Shakespeare created the Ghost merely for dramatic purposes?
I want to make clear that Shakespeare did not think up the Hamlet story; he inhereted it and so the ghost. I'm not sure he really cared about the ghost (for all the reasons I've already mentioned). The slip ups seem to justify this speculation.

ShoutGrace

11-04-2006, 11:59 PM

By the way, I forgot to respond to this:

I want to make clear that Shakespeare did not think up the Hamlet story; he inhereted it and so the ghost.

Oh, yes, very much so. "Created" is the wrong word, I suppose. "Used?" "Maintained?"

Janine

11-05-2006, 11:34 PM

Wow, not sure I can effectively jump in here at this late point. I just read every post (5 pages) and my head is spinning. First off - why are you guys fighting over the whole deal of the ghost? Hey, maybe it is time to give up the ghost! I really wonder if the confusion was not something that Shakepeare actually intended. I think he might have wanted us to question throughout the play the validity of the ghost. Was the ghost real, was the ghost good or was the ghost evil? I thought I might hit on something intelligent, but this is just a stab in the dark, do bear with me on this idea. First I want to say I can see all points and all sides and theories in this long and heated discussion. I can't see where anyone is really wrong. I think the mystery of the ghost is actually brilliant. Are not all ghosts mysterious? Hey, I am thinking this up as I go along. I do have to agree on some of the points that MsDirector brought up. I was thinking on these very lines when I found her posting. She put forth her ideas well and documented them clearly. They made much sense. I personally think the ghost is spiritual and not something we can easily set into the physical realm or even comprehend. First off, Shakepeare had to show the ghost as a real person on stage, but Shakepeare often uses his narrator or chorus to appeal to the audience to use one's imagination in such matters. We physically see the ghost one way, but perhaps the ghost is something entirely different. Maybe the ghost is different to each person who experiences him or it or whatever. The mystery of the ghost leads us to question all of the play and all of the motives. This is the brilliant aspect of "Hamlet". I personally believe Shakespeare, who was a man (capable of flaws), but also a genius, knew exactly what he was doing throughout all of Hamlet. In many ways the play is a progression. Hamlet changes and progresses as the play proceeds and progresses as well. There are many stages of this change. Some have been mentioned in earlier posts. The fact that Gertrude does not see the ghost does not really bother me at all. I was thinking of the possibilty that if one had guilt, one could not view the ghost. The perception might not be there. Also maybe those that would be open to believing in the ghost would be the only ones able to see it. Real ghost hunters will tell you this today and they ardently do believe in spirits or ghosts. Not all can see them or orbs which they claim are spirits. I recently attended a local meeting of one of the groups who claim they have documented these sightings. They claim some people are sensitive or have highly developed senses to perceive the ghost. Since Hamlet is very sensitive (even overly so) and he does entertain the belief that there could exist a ghost, this could explain why he sees it, when others cannot. Also, perhaps the guilty can not perceive the image of the ghost. I also agree with the idea that the ghost could be evil. I believe this, because the ultimate result for the entire kingdom is tragic. "Hamlet" ends on the note of complete tragedy, with all of the royalty dead, and the kingdom passing on to Fortinbras, who has ultimately invaded and overthrown it. Could this not be the true motive of the ghost if he was evil? Until the end and this dire conclusion all of the subjects and characters attention has been greatly diverted to Hamlet's madness, and not to fortifying the palace and protecting the kingdom. Lets say that Gertrude had seen the ghost, then the kingdom might have been kept protected, since Claudius would have been revealed as his father's murderer and received his due punishment. Then Hamlet would have taken over the throne and run the kingdom much more effectively. In this case the end result may not have been the ultimate overthrow of the realm. Has anyone else thought about the importance of the ending with Fortinbras invading and taking back his kingdom? To further support this point the ghost no longer appears after Fortinbras assumes power. If he were an evil device he would no longer be needed. Also, throughout the play he is no longer needed to advance the action after Polonius is killed. After that it sets things rolling towards the tragic conclusion. Hope this makes sense to someone out there, but I admit that this last part might be off the mark somewhat. Still something to think about....a "what if".

Virgil

11-06-2006, 08:33 AM

[QUOTE]Wow, not sure I can effectively jump in here at this late point. I just read every post (5 pages) and my head is spinning. First off - why are you guys fighting over the whole deal of the ghost? Hey, maybe it is time to give up the ghost!
:lol: I have tried a few times and have been pulled back.

I really wonder if the confusion was not something that Shakepeare actually intended. I think he might have wanted us to question throughout the play the validity of the ghost. Was the ghost real, was the ghost good or was the ghost evil? I thought I might hit on something intelligent, but this is just a stab in the dark, do bear with me on this idea. First I want to say I can see all points and all sides and theories in this long and heated discussion. I can't see where anyone is really wrong. I think the mystery of the ghost is actually brilliant. Are not all ghosts mysterious?
You know, I think you may have hit on something here. Not so much the good and evil part, Regit (or perhaps it someone else) has discussed the uncertainty of the ghost's motives. But the sense that the ghost is unfathomable parallels Hamlet's search for understanding in the world. And so Shakeapeare purposfully created this flaw (that the ghost just drops from the play mid way and it's motif is never resolved) as an aesthetic construct to mirror the central theme. Quite possible, and perhaps likely!! After all, Shakespeare does not do it with the witches in MacBeth. Very good Janine. You may have solved it. But one caveat. I'll say it again, Shakespeare inherented the story and from what I remember it was a popular story many times dramatised in Shakespeare day. The play was strongly associated with a ghost, and Shakespeare would have been compelled to include it. I have never read the pre-Shakespeare versions of this play or story. It would make an interesting comparison, perhaps the basis of a term paper or thesis.

But I like your theory very much. From now on this will be my understanding of Shakespeare's use of the ghost.

PS, so who says I'm stubborn and don't change my mind? :D

Janine

11-06-2006, 04:08 PM

Virgil, Well, I thank you for appreciating my attempt at explaining what I think is the case with the ghost. You know, we live in the "logical" world and the ghost does not. So we, living in the logical world, would probably expect logic from the ghost. However, ghosts do not appear always on cue, nor when summoned....they are not a logical phenomenon....at least not here in the material world or plane. Oh yeah, I know all about ghosts! Right - Ha! Ha!
Anyway, if Shakespeare, and I don't doubt it, took the original idea from other sources, he still would not have to be hemmed in to the exact story. He merely used the raw resources and made his own play with some of those elements or ideas. He shaped them to his own ends. Now if you examine the lines that address the time in which Hamlet sees the ghost and Gertrude does not, in the bedroom scene, it is interesting to note just how many lines Shakepeare devoted to this discrepancy. If, in fact Shakespeare was creating a mistake, or flaw, in the play, why then did he spend such a considerable part of the text pointing out that Gertrude could not see the "pale" (Hamlet's exact words) vison or ghost, as Hamlet could?
Queen:Whereon do you look?
Hamlet: On him, on him, Look you, how pale he glares! His form and cause conjoin’d, preaching to stones,
Would make them capable.
–Do not look upon me;
Lest with this piteous action you convert
My stern effects: then what I have to do
Will want true colour:tears perchance for blood.
Queen. To whom do you speak this?
Hamlet: Do you see nothing there?
Queen: Nothing at all; yet all that is I see.
Hamlet: Nor did you nothing hear?
Queen: No nothing but ourselves.
Hamlet: Why look you there! look how it steals away!
My father in his habit as he liv’d!
Look, where he goes, even now, out at the portal!
I believe that Shakespeare, intentionally, did not have Gertrude capable or "open" to the experience of seeing the ghost. Gertrude had guilt and she would have fought, mentally and emotionally, seeing the dead King's image. She would not welcome seeing her former husband's visage, knowing she had so quickly married with his brother. After Hamlet's long thrashing of her emotions and comparing the two men, prior to the ghost's, appearance this would put her definitely into a "guilty" state of mind. Hamlet's love and devotion to his father makes him open to seeing him....even now a pale image of him. When Hamlet first viewed the ghost, outside the castle walls, he was ready emotionally to behold him. He was dwelling on his image from the beginning scene, in the great hall, until he did view him. He was definitely open to his ghostly visitation. If you noticed, in the bedroom scene, the ghost has changed somewhat in the text in description from the first viewing in the grounds of the castle. At first he seems more solid and forboding and strong: he is a loud pressense, and now he seems quieter and to be fading away. Perhaps Shakespeare wrote it this way intentionally, so that the ghost undergoes a sort of "transformation" that parallels that of Hamlet and he begins to fade from the play entirely at this point - the ghost, not Hamlet. To advance the play, the ghost image was no longer needed. His voice would only be repetition any point after the bedroom scene.

To me the tempo of the play itself, slows down, after Hamlet returns from the boat aborted journey. It quiets, somewhat, in the second part of the play, advancing more slowly toward the climax of the final confrontation and the sword fight. Hamlet, himself, condemplates in quieter and sometimes calmer fashion throughout this period, the fate of a man and mortality - such as the cemetary scene, prior to the entrance of the burial procession - which shows a flairup of Hamlets wrought emotions, but the flair is brief and then Hamelt runs off with Horatio at his heels. In the second half of the play, or third act, Hamlet is more resigned, than in the first half of the play, thus like the ghost, he has undergone a definitive transformation. This is why it is vitally important to read all of the text of the play, or to view the play in it's entirety. There are many nuances of meaning in all of the text and characters.

Ofcourse, there is another side (always another side) to this argument or theory and that entails the theory that the ghost is not a respectable ghost, but rather an "evil spirit", intending to rack havoc on the Kingdom. In that case, the ghost may be able to choose who does and who does not see him. If he was actually the real visage of his father, he might be close to the end of his time in Pergatory and heading to wherever he is destined to spend eternity. He could be fading entirely from this earthly realm. He might not have any control over where he ends up....maybe not a nice place at all:flare:

Virgil

11-06-2006, 07:47 PM

Virgil, Well, I thank you for appreciating my attempt at explaining what I think is the case with the ghost. You know, we live in the "logical" world and the ghost does not. So we, living in the logical world, would probably expect logic from the ghost. However, ghosts do not appear always on cue, nor when summoned....they are not a logical phenomenon....at least not here in the material world or plane. Oh yeah, I know all about ghosts! Right - Ha! Ha!

I'm not saying the ghost is logical or not. I'm saying that the existence of the ghost is an unfathomable mystery, which parallels the unfathomable mysteries (life, death, insanity, justice) that Hamlet is trying to unlock. The ghost is a symbol for those mysteries, and Hsakespeare makes him as unfathomable as possible by varying who can see him and who can't and by inspiring the revenge but then fading away and not guiding or helping Hamlet. Wow, I've don a 180 here and am actually supporting Regit. :D Do you hear that Regit?

Anyway, if Shakespeare, and I don't doubt it, took the original idea from other sources, he still would not have to be hemmed in to the exact story. He merely used the raw resources and made his own play with some of those elements or ideas. He shaped them to his own ends.
This is true, but I believe I have seen that the Hamlet play was completely associated with the ghost for the general Elizabethan audience. I don't know how Shakespeare varied the story.

Now if you examine the lines that address the time in which Hamlet sees the ghost and Gertrude does not, in the bedroom scene, it is interesting to note just how many lines Shakepeare devoted to this discrepancy. If, in fact Shakespeare was creating a mistake, or flaw, in the play, why then did he spend such a considerable part of the text pointing out that Gertrude could not see the "pale" (Hamlet's exact words) vison or ghost, as Hamlet could?
I can't answer that. What I do see is that Shakespeare drops the ghost after that scene? Why? Either a lapse, a disinterest, or as I now believe an aesthetic representation of the mystery theme in the play.

I believe that Shakespeare, intentionally, did not have Gertrude capable or "open" to the experience of seeing the ghost. Gertrude had guilt and she would have fought, mentally and emotionally, seeing the dead King's image. She would not welcome seeing her former husband's visage, knowing she had so quickly married with his brother.
But why have the scene at all? I'm not sure what that scene adds to the central plot.

After Hamlet's long thrashing of her emotions and comparing the two men, prior to the ghost's, appearance this would put her definitely into a "guilty" state of mind. Hamlet's love and devotion to his father makes him open to seeing him....even now a pale image of him. When Hamlet first viewed the ghost, outside the castle walls, he was ready emotionally to behold him. He was dwelling on his image from the beginning scene, in the great hall, until he did view him. He was definitely open to his ghostly visitation.
What about the other characters that see him?

If you noticed, in the bedroom scene, the ghost has changed somewhat in the text in description from the first viewing in the grounds of the castle. At first he seems more solid and forboding and strong: he is a loud pressense, and now he seems quieter and to be fading away. Perhaps Shakespeare wrote it this way intentionally, so that the ghost undergoes a sort of "transformation" that parallels that of Hamlet and he begins to fade from the play entirely at this point - the ghost, not Hamlet. To advance the play, the ghost image was no longer needed. His voice would only be repetition any point after the bedroom scene.
I will have to see the play once more and look for this. I never thought about a change in the ghost before.

To me the tempo of the play itself, slows down, after Hamlet returns from the boat aborted journey. It quiets, somewhat, in the second part of the play, advancing more slowly toward the climax ...
Why do you think that is?

Ofcourse, there is another side (always another side) to this argument or theory and that entails the theory that the ghost is not a respectable ghost, but rather an "evil spirit", intending to rack havoc on the Kingdom. In that case, the ghost may be able to choose who does and who does not see him. If he was actually the real visage of his father, he might be close to the end of his time in Pergatory and heading to wherever he is destined to spend eternity. He could be fading entirely from this earthly realm. He might not have any control over where he ends up....maybe not a nice place at all:flare:
The ghost is mysterious and unfathomable.;)

Janine

11-06-2006, 08:25 PM

I'm not saying the ghost is logical or not. I'm saying that the existence of the ghost is an unfathomable mystery, which parallels the unfathomable mysteries (life, death, insanity, justice) that Hamlet is trying to unlock. The ghost is a symbol for those mysteries, and Hsakespeare makes him as unfathomable as possible by varying who can see him and who can't and by inspiring the revenge but then fading away and not guiding or helping Hamlet. Wow, I've don a 180 here and am actually supporting Regit. :D Do you hear that Regit?

"unfathomable mystery, which parallels the unfathomable mysteries (life, death, insanity, justice) that Hamlet is trying to unlock". Wonderful...I really like the way you put that! Ghosts, by nature may not be at all logical and they certainly are mysterious. By including a ghost at all, Shakespeare was setting up a riddle and a mystery. He was also entertaining an audience and I am sure they loved the frightening aspect of the ghost. There was so much superstition in England at that time. The ghost had to be highly entertaining as well as an important element in the play. Let's face it - it grabs ones interest right from the beginning having the ghost appear. Then when Hamlet sees him one gets hooked from that point on. The ghost works to pull one into the play, so in that way it was a device, that I am sure Shakespeare knew would create that kind of effect. He really was a genius and very clever with plays and he knew his audience well. He always had something for everyone....humor, mystery, drama, tragedy. In the scene where Polonius rattles off what the players can do, he mimics this in naming many genres of performance. This is true also of all of Shakespeare's plays.

This is true, but I believe I have seen that the Hamlet play was completely associated with the ghost for the general Elizabethan audience. I don't know how Shakespeare varied the story.

Ok, I agree with that - I don't know anything much about the original story or the original myth of the ghost story.

I can't answer that. What I do see is that Shakespeare drops the ghost after that scene? Why? Either a lapse, a disinterest, or as I now believe an aesthetic representation of the mystery theme in the play.

I still think the ghost sort of fades. I too have to watch the film another time. That's ok, I watch it every couple months. I am Hamlet obsessed! It is like a riddle and I always want to figure out more things about it. I love that aspect of it and maybe Shakespeare knew he was doing that to his viewing public...setting up a riddle for them to solve. This made the play more interactive, like the way people get hooked on video games today.

But why have the scene at all? I'm not sure what that scene adds to the central plot.

I think the scene is important - especially confronting the mother. The entrance of the ghost breaks the fury of Hamlet's words and he is put into his place and slows his pace after that and becomes more thoughtful.

What about the other characters that see him?
All of those are the good guys or believe in the ghost?....what do you think?

I will have to see the play once more and look for this. I never thought about a change in the ghost before.

Yes, another viewing and looking at it from that aspect might help us both.

Why do you think that is?

The ghost is no longer needed, but it is still a mystery to me why he does not ever appear again, except to think he just fades away. Maybe he would have been too distracting to the rest of the plot.

The ghost is mysterious and unfathomable.;)

Absolutely!!!:D

msdirector

11-07-2006, 03:36 AM

The ghost is mysterious and unfathomable.;)

I'm going to put my two cents in here and try to address this Ghost issue from a few different points of view. Too long an answer, and no doubt I'll get arguments, but it's an interesting topic.

I think when we are trying to interpret a play - especially Shakespeare's plays where we don't have any authorial comments to help us understand what he had in mind when writing it - we have to look at the play from three different points of view. Two have been discussed here, but one has not.

First there is what serves the story - seeing the play from the point of view of the characters themselves as though they were real people (or spirits?) and examining the logic of the way they act based on their actions, thoughts, feelings and interrelationships. Some of the discussion of the Ghost and his presence in Hamlet has been focused on that - what he wants, why Gertrude doesn't see him, why he doesn't help Hamlet, and why he doesn't come back after the confrontation in the "closet" scene.

Second is what serves the dramatist's purpose - what he was trying to communicate and how he used the different aspects of the play to make that happen, what moves the story forward and contributes to the development of plot as well as the characters and their interrelationships, why he made the choices he did. Some of the discussion focused on those things - what was Shakespeare's intention in not returning to the Ghost later in the play, what was the purpose the Ghost's presence in the "closet" scene, what was the purpose of the Ghost in the structure of the play.

And third, on a much more practical level, is what serves the production - technically, financially and for the company for which it was written. Remember, Shakespeare was an actor and a share-holder in The Lord Chamberlain's Men (later called The King's Men when King James took over patronage of the acting company). He was, in effect, contracted to write for his company, and his plays were specifically designed to meet the needs of the company they were written for. Shakespeare wrote his characters to fit the specific actors they were written for, and rewrote and revised when other actors took their place. He wrote his plays, too, to account for the limitations of the company - including the size of the company and financial issue. While Shakespeare's plays generally have large casts of characters, the company was not particularly large. They could, of course, hire additional actors for certain plays, but that was an added expense. Most plays were written specifically to be doubled - that is, one actor played more than one role. And that meant that, for technical reasons, some characters were only seen in part of the play so that the actor could double as another character later in the play. It was often thought that in King Lear the same actor played The Fool and Cordelia (although that has been disputed). It is possible the same was true of the the Ghost.

There were several ways the Ghost could have been doubled. Although we don't know exactly what doubling Shakespeare used in his productions, modern productions have chosen several different alternatives (remembering that there needs to be time enough between entrances to change costume and for other technical aspects of production). Some double the Ghost and The First Player (my choice, since then when the Player plays the King in "The Murder of Gonzago" we are actually "seeing" King Hamlet as well. Others have doubled the Ghost and Claudius - more difficult and unlikely in Shakespeare's day, but and intriguing choice. Others double the Ghost and the First Gravedigger (although he was more likely doubled with Polonius). No matter what the choice, it required a judicious placement of the Ghost's appearances.

It is also possible - reported by Rowe in 1708 - that Shakespeare himself acted the part of Ghost. According to Rowe, "the top of his performance was the Ghost in his own Hamlet." If that was the case, then part of the reason why the Ghost's role was kept brief would have been that Shakespeare, as the playwright, would have also played the role of what we today call the director,although they had no such actual position in those days. Most often the playwright himself, if he was part of the company, oversaw the staging of the production. So Shakespeare would have kept the Ghost to a few brief, uncomplicated scenes - anyone who has ever tried to direct a show they were acting in can tell you how difficult that is.

As for the first two aspects.... Personally, I think that the Ghost's appearance is an integral part of the plot and makes sense in that context. While the earlier "Ur-Hamlet", perhaps written by Kyd, apparently did have a ghost, unlike the original Saxo Grammaticus History of Denmark story that it was adapted from, that ghost was reported to be far more along the lines of the older over-the-top horrific ghost than Shakespeare's more dramatically developed version. As for a reason for his presence in the closet scene, it seems clear to me - the Ghost had specifically told Hamlet to revenge his murder but to leave his mother out of his revenge. At that point in the play, Hamlet had just foregone an obvious chance to kill Claudius and then gone on quite literally attack his mother, both verbally and physically, and not so subtlely accuse her of complicity in his father's death. The Ghost's entrance was timed perfectly. Hamlet had just upbraided Gertrude for her nasty relationship with Claudius. She protests and begs him "No more, sweet Hamlet." But he continues, coming dangerously close of accusing him to Gertrude:
"A murderer and a villain,
A slave that is not twentieth part the tithe
Of your precedent lord, a vice of kings,
A cutpurse of the empire and the rule,
That from a shelf the precious diadem stole
And put it in his pocket --"

Gertrude again - "No more."

Then Hamlet again - "A king of shreds and patches --"

And enter the Ghost!

Perfect timing. Although the Ghost says little - simply a reminder to "whet thy almost blunted purpose" it follows that with a plea for Hamlet to help his mother rather than berate her. His entrance is timed to move Hamlet away from Gertrude and back toward revenge. Think what might have happened if the Ghost had not entered. Would Hamlet have accused Claudius directly? Would he have accused Gertrude? Would he have killed her against the Ghost's wishes?

Not mysterious and unfathomable at all. It's not the Ghost's job to help Hamlet. If it could do that it wouldn't need Hamlet. But it's the son's job to revenge his father, not the citizens of the country to revenge their king. It's a personal thing. He only returns to put Hamlet back on the track and to protect his wife. There really is no need for him to return again. Although I have to say that I intend, when directing my version, to have the Ghost return silently to watch the last scene in the play, leaving after Gertrude dies (the Ghost asked that Hamlet "leave her to heaven" and heaven has decided her fate when she drinks from the poisoned cup) and Hamlet kills Claudius.

I have a question - why do you think that the Ghost initially appears in full armor (that is explained in the text), but in the closet scene appears in his nightgown (there is no explanation given for that). Just curious what you think.

Virgil

11-07-2006, 08:29 AM

Janine

11-08-2006, 12:47 AM

msdirector - I am glad you put in your "two cents". Makes a lot of sense to me! One has to always remember Sh was writing for an audience, not plays for a book, and it was a production for a wide variety of people. Peasants, middle classes and royalty looked on at The Globe and loved the entertainment. The players did much with a small group and doubles as you have pointed out. You bring up so many good points about how the production was staged. Great - fresh, new ideas here. Thanks!

msdirector

11-08-2006, 02:17 AM

Wow, I am glad msdirector that you have joined our discussion. Some fine observations there, and it's great to have someone who has directed. I see also that you are relatively close to me. If you put on any plays in the future within driving distance I would be interested in attending. Please drop me a note.

Thanks, Virgil. :-) Then next show I'm directing is the World Premiere of a new musical, BELLES OF THE MILL, at the Harvest Theatre in Toledo, Ohio in May. But I will definitely let you know about any local shows I'll be directing. That should include my re-interpretation of Hamlet that will be the focus of my MA dissertation, which, hopefully, will be staged in the NYC area sometime in the spring or summer of 2008.

I have heard this too, but while it's a practical consideration, it would not be an excuse for a structural flaw to the story line. However, as i've come to now believe as I've put forth in my last few posts, i think Shakespeare intentionally created this flaw for an aesthetic effect, and that is a valid excuse..

This is, of course, assuming you consider it a "flaw," which I don't.

But why even include the closet scene? Why have this conflict with his mother? It's a sub-plot that complicates and I'm not sure what it adds.

Is this, then, the focus of your issues with the play? I personally think that the conflict with Hamlet's mother is not only integral to the plot (and not just a sub-plot), it's the heart and soul of what makes Hamlet not just another revenge play and what make Shakespeare's writing stand head and shoulders above that of the other playwrights of his times. Without that conflict it's just one of many revenge plays - father murdered, after trials, obstacles of several kind, son avenges his father's death. It's a standard plot, simple and bloody and unoriginal. But Shakespeare, taking the basic story from earlier stories and plays, made the story much more complex. The murderer was the boy's uncle. And he married his mother. Look at the text. What is more important to Hamlet - that his father was murdered or that his mother betrayed his father by marrying his murderer? It's pretty much a toss-up. He talks about avenging his father, but his main anger and disgust is against his mother. It is at the heart of the play. This is what turns the play from a run of the mill revenge play to a psychological study and journey into the mind of a man progressively abandoned, betrayed and isolated until he alone (all but for Horatio) must accept the truth and take his fate into his own hands.

Think about it. As a prince, Hamlet is by position a man very much alone. In his position it is impossible to have any really true friends and certainly none his equal in social and political position. Those he loves and trusts growing up are his family - his father, his mother, and his uncle (and I include Polonius in that group as his father's trusted advisor, and Ophelia as Polonius's daughter and Hamlet's dear friend, possibly lover, and perhaps, potential wife) and, perhaps most of all, his country, which he has every reason to believe he will rule someday. Then, through the action of the play, he gradually loses all of them - his father murdered; his throne lost to him; his uncle perhaps the murderer, certainly the thief of his throne and the seducer of his mother, who he sees as betraying both his father and him; Polonius deserting his father to fawn over Claudius; his childhood friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern acting the sycophants, spying on him for Claudius and ultimately conveying him to what would have been his death; and finally Ophelia who, through her innocence, he (perhaps - although not in my own interpretation) believes to have also betrayed him to her father and the King. This is a man alone. And that's what the story is about - not just a revenge play.

Hamlet leaves for school at Wittenberg, making one true trusted friend there in Horatio, who, while not of his station, has nothing to gain from him and has earned his trust and respect. As the play opens, Hamlet has been called back for the funeral of his father - surely the most important influence in his life. He is devastated and, no doubt, preparing himself to assume the throne. He returns only to find that, within the shortest period of time, almost immediately following the funeral, his mother has married his uncle who has, in effect, stolen his throne. While his father's loss is sad, it is, as Claudius says, not an unusual one in any man's life. But the shock of his mother's remarriage, and to his father's brother, has hit Hamlet all the harder because of its callousness and the implied betrayal of his newly lost father. It is his mother's actions that fill Hamlet's thoughts when we first see him, even more than his father's death.

Then he meets the Ghost, who immediately seems to recognize Hamlet's silent accusation of his mother. And even the Ghost warns him not to try to avenge himself on his mother. Far from being a structural flaw, from the very beginning of the play, Hamlet's relationship with his mother is at the center of the play. It is not, I believe, the Oedipal relationship that was once the favorite interpretation of many (including Olivier). But it is certainly central to Hamlet's mind-set and his actions all through the play. And certainly a confrontation between Hamlet and his mother is logically a climactic moment in the play. It doesn't surprise me one bit that it is far more dramatic than Hamlet's confrontations with Claudius - their relationship is far more personal, more intense, more essential. Just as it doesn't surprise me one bit that the final climactic action of the play, Hamlet's killing of Claudius, follows immediately on Gertrude's dying from drinking the poison. And that Hamlet's cry to Claudius upon stabbing him is not about his father, but about his mother:

"Here, thou incestuous, murd'rous damned Dane,
Drink off this potion. Is this thy union here?
Follow my mother."

Hamlet stabs him for his father - but his final, passionate, contemptuous, horrific action toward Claudius is about his mother. Hardly indicative of a sub-plot or a structural flaw. Hamlet's relationship with his mother is integral to the play, and the confrontation and conflict epitomized in the "closet" scene makes that perfectly clear.

I'm not saying that Shakespeare's works are flawless or perfect. They certainly are not. But Hamlet is one of his most complex plays and the characterizations and relationships throughout it are exceptionally strong, multi-layered and have extraordinary depth. They can not be dismissed as inconsequential without really studying how they interrelate.

As for the Ghost's costuming in the "closet" scene:

Mysterious and unfathomable. :D

:lol: I'll concede that one, Virgil. It's as good an answer as any!

Best,
Arlene

msdirector - I am glad you put in your "two cents". Makes a lot of sense to me! One has to always remember Sh was writing for an audience, not plays for a book, and it was a production for a wide variety of people. Peasants, middle classes and royalty looked on at The Globe and loved the entertainment. The players did much with a small group and doubles as you have pointed out. You bring up so many good points about how the production was staged. Great - fresh, new ideas here. Thanks!

Thanks Janine. That's what comes of actually studying Shakespeare in the place he was born and being able to walk the banks of the Avon as he did. Studying at The Shakespeare Institute in Stratford-upon-Avon is absolutely inspirational.

You're right. So many teachers approach Shakespeare's plays as literature only that people often forget that they were never originally meant to be read and studied. They were written to be performed and to be seen and heard by an unruly audience! In fact, it's pretty obvious from studying the Quartos that Shakespeare, unlike some playwrights of his day, had little interest in the publication of his plays. He wrote for the stage, specifically his own company. And the conditions of that stage (those stages actually - he wrote for the public outdoor theatres, primarily the Globe and, then later, for the indoor private Blackfriars theatre as well - along with occasionally writing for the court specifically) greatly affected the content and structure of the plays he wrote.

Virgil

11-08-2006, 08:23 AM

That should include my re-interpretation of Hamlet that will be the focus of my MA dissertation, which, hopefully, will be staged in the NYC area sometime in the spring or summer of 2008.

Oh, please let me know.

Is this [mother's relationship], then, the focus of your issues with the play?
No, that's not what I've been saying. Hamlet's relationship with his mother is a sub-plot that adds complexity to the play, and is resolved. The structural flaw that I've been citing is the use of the ghost, mainily in that the ghost starts the action, makes an appearence mid way, and then disappears from the rest of the play. The tension invoked by the ghost is never resolved. That I consider a flaw, somewhat in the manner of a musical theme that never comes to a closed cadence, if you know what I mean. You can't just introduce something and just drop it, especially when the genesis of the action is that something. I think you said you had the ghost reappear at the end of your dramatization. I think intuitively you are recognizing the same issue I've brought up, this unresolved tennsion, this flaw, and by bringing the ghost back (brilliant, I might add, though not in the play) you have soften the impact of the flaw. I think I now realize why Shakespeare does incorporate this flaw, and he must have realized it; he was too good a story teller. Like Janine has pointed out, it aesthetically represents the mysteries that Hamlet is trying to figure out and cannot. I'm convinced the flaw is intentional and aesthetically justifiable.

Janine

11-08-2006, 04:12 PM

If you have seen the film by Kenneth Branagh, and I know it has it's flaws, he must have sensed the need to represent the dead father (the King) someway at the end of the film, since the last scene is of Fortinbra's soldiers smashing the image (monument) of the King - it is a stark realization of the change in power. Perhaps Branagh felt the need to put the King to rest, just as he has shown the funeral procession of Hamlet, to the extent of showing Hamlet's dead body magestically laid out in the coffin. In a way the death of Hamlet and the death of the King are paramount to the ending and the imagery and putting the ghost and Hamlet to rest once and for all. The image of the King being smashed, once again presents the dead King (ghost unseen, but vividly remembered) into the play for the last and final time. Perhaps he did this to finalize the play, in other words coming "full circle" with the image of the ghost. It would be interesting to read the screenplay, which I own. I have not read it yet but intend to. I hope to see if this is one reason Branagh chose to show once again the image of the dead king....leaving that as our final impression.

msdirector

11-08-2006, 04:24 PM

The structural flaw that I've been citing is the use of the ghost, mainily in that the ghost starts the action, makes an appearence mid way, and then disappears from the rest of the play. The tension invoked by the ghost is never resolved. That I consider a flaw, somewhat in the manner of a musical theme that never comes to a closed cadence, if you know what I mean. You can't just introduce something and just drop it, especially when the genesis of the action is that something.

I do tend to agree with you here, Virgil, although I'm not sure that I would call it a "flaw." Part of the problem is that we don't know exactly what Shakespeare had in mind. Another part of the problem is that in Shakespeare's plays (and others published in those days) stage directions refering to characters who did not have speaking lines in the scene were often not included in the text. There are a number of places in the Quartos of his plays where a character is obviously present in a scene, but there is given no entrance stage direction for him, or where it is obvious that a character has exited, but there is no stage direction to that effect. So it is entirely possible that in Shakespeare's original text or in the playscript (what we call the promptbook today) that the ghost had unspoken appearances that have been lost through the publication of the play.

Additionally, during the 18 year period in which the theatres were closed by the Puritans in 1642 until they were reopened by King Charles II in the Restoration in 1660, there could have been much nuance lost. By the time the theatres reopened it was 44 years after Shakespeare had died, and 37 years after the First Folio had been published. While there were a few actors left who had been trained by those who had worked with Shakespeare, it is likely that much of the original staging and Shakespeare's intentions had been lost. Additional changes, revisions, re-interpretations and such in the years between then and now have influenced how we think of Hamlet and Shakespeare's other plays. We can speculate on what we think Shakespeare might have intended, but there is really no way of knowing for sure.

I think you said you had the ghost reappear at the end of your dramatization. I think intuitively you are recognizing the same issue I've brought up, this unresolved tennsion, this flaw, and by bringing the ghost back (brilliant, I might add, though not in the play) you have soften the impact of the flaw.

Thanks, Virgil. I've always wanted to find a way to complete that "motif". I, too, missed a closure with Hamlet and his father's ghost. I think that Shakespeare must have had it there, or something similar, but it has been lost and this was the "solution" that works for me. Hopefully it will work for the audience too.

If you have seen the film by Kenneth Branagh, and I know it has it's flaws, he must have sensed the need to represent the dead father (the King) someway at the end of the film, since the last scene is of Fortinbra's soldiers smashing the image (monument) of the King - it is a stark realization of the change in power. Perhaps Branagh felt the need to put the King to rest, just as he has shown the funeral procession of Hamlet, to the extent of showing Hamlet's dead body magestically laid out in the coffin. In a way the death of Hamlet and the death of the King are paramount to the ending and the imagery and putting the ghost and Hamlet to rest once and for all. The image of the King being smashed, once again presents the dead King (ghost unseen, but vividly remembered) into the play for the last and final time. Perhaps he did this to finalize the play, in other words coming "full circle" with the image of the ghost. It would be interesting to read the screenplay, which I own. I have not read it yet but intend to. I hope to see if this is one reason Branagh chose to show once again the image of the dead king....leaving that as our final impression.

This is an interesting interpretation, Janine.

I have seen Ken Branagh's Hamlet, and I do really like it (particularly the fact that it is pretty much the full text and the wonderful portrayal of Claudius by Derek Jacobi). In fact, other than some major miscasting in some minor roles and an odd choice of place and period (Tzarist Russian?), the thing I liked least about film was the ending. There is absolutely nothing in the text that indicates that Fortinbras comes to Elsinor at the end with anything but peaceful intentions and that "invasion" in contradiction to the text seemed to me like a pointless introduction of violence that totally pulls focus from the essential climax of the story.

To be honest, the pulling down of the statue never really connected for me at all as an re-connection with the ghost. I saw it as Fortinbras reconquering the kingdom that he would have seen as being "stolen" from his father, and therefore himself. It seemed to me to be totally political and external to the heart of the play and it never occurred to me that it might be a way to find closure with the ghost because it was Fortinbras bringing it down, which had nothing to do with the Ghost's charge to Hamlet, the final avenging of his death, or setting the Ghost's mind to rest. It was an act of destruction, not an act of reconciliation or closure. It simply didn't work for me.

But I can see, now that you mention it, that it might have been one of Branagh's motivations for including it in the scene. I'm curious, Janine - you say you have the screenplay. Does it include director's notes or is it simply the screenplay itself which would only have the dialogue and stage directions, etc.? If it has director's notes, then I will definitely have to put it on my "to-buy" list. I would love to know why Branagh made some of the choices he did.

Janine

11-08-2006, 05:36 PM

This is an interesting interpretation, Janine.

I have seen Ken Branagh's Hamlet, and I do really like it (particularly the fact that it is pretty much the full text and the wonderful portrayal of Claudius by Derek Jacobi). In fact, other than some major miscasting in some minor roles and an odd choice of place and period (Tzarist Russian?), the thing I liked least about film was the ending. There is absolutely nothing in the text that indicates that Fortinbras comes to Elsinor at the end with anything but peaceful intentions and that "invasion" in contradiction to the text seemed to me like a pointless introduction of violence that totally pulls focus from the essential climax of the story.
I will have to read the ending of Hamlet again to answer this. I would suppose that Branagh interpretted it his own way showing there was a change in power of the kingdom. How can an invasion be peaceful? I will check the original text.

To be honest, the pulling down of the statue never really connected for me at all as an re-connection with the ghost. I saw it as Fortinbras reconquering the kingdom that he would have seen as being "stolen" from his father, and therefore himself. It seemed to me to be totally political and external to the heart of the play and it never occurred to me that it might be a way to find closure with the ghost because it was Fortinbras bringing it down, which had nothing to do with the Ghost's charge to Hamlet, the final avenging of his death, or setting the Ghost's mind to rest. It was an act of destruction, not an act of reconciliation or closure. It simply didn't work for me. But I can see, now that you mention it, that it might have been one of Branagh's motivations for including it in the scene. I'm curious, Janine - you say you have the screenplay. Does it include director's notes or is it simply the screenplay itself which would only have the dialogue and stage directions, etc.? If it has director's notes, then I will definitely have to put it on my "to-buy" list. I would love to know why Branagh made some of the choices he did.

Yes, Index as follows:
The Introduction (by Branagh)
The Cast
The Screenplay
The Choice of Text
The Film Diary
The Film

You can check the book out on Amazon.... even view some preview of the inside text. It will describe what it includes, and be sure to read reviewers opinions. I bought it from a ventor on the site, but I have not jet read it. I am working up to it; I was sidetracked by other reading. It also has great photos in the center section. I bought it really reasonably priced.
Can you enlighten me? Virgil also thinks the play was set in 19th Century Russia. How did you come up with this impression when they continually speak of the Danes and being Danish and being in Denmark? It is set in the 19th Century. That part is correct.

Thanks for your other insightful comments. I will check back with you after I read the ending to Hamlet again....Janine

msdirector

11-08-2006, 06:16 PM

I will have to read the ending of Hamlet again to answer this. I would suppose that Branagh interpretted it his own way showing there was a change in power of the kingdom. How can an invasion be peaceful? I will check the original text.

An invasion can't be peaceful. But Fortinbras didn't invade. He came, asked permission to enter the country on his way back from defeating the Poles, and was approaching, with permission, as visiting Royalty. His assumption of Denmark's throne was only because both Claudius and Gertrude were dead and Hamlet, with his dying breath, recommended Fortinbras to the Danes because of his prior claim to the throne. Without Fortinbras there would be no legitimate heir to the throne of Denmark and chaos, anarchy and civil war would have ensued. Hamlet, even to last words, was still a Prince and his last thoughts were of his country.

Yes, Index as follows:
The Introduction (by Branagh)
The Cast
The Screenplay
The Choice of Text
The Film Diary
The Film

You can check the book out on Amazon.... even view some preview of the inside text. It will describe what it includes, and be sure to read reviewers opinions. I bought it from a ventor on the site, but I have not jet read it. I am working up to it; I was sidetracked by other reading. It also has great photos in the center section. I bought it really reasonably priced.

That's fabulous. I'll head over to Amazon.com right now. Thanks for the tip. It will be great to actually see what was in Branagh's mind when he made his choices. As a director that's magical for me.

Can you enlighten me? Virgil also thinks the play was set in 19th Century Russia. How did you come up with this impression when they continually speak of the Danes and being Danish and being in Denmark? It is set in the 19th Century. That part is correct.

The play does take place in Denmark, by the text. But any director is free to choose a setting - that is, choice of set design and costuming - and time frame for his production. Remember Ian McKellan's Richard III, which obviously took place in a 1930's-40's WWII Germany setting? The text wasn't changed to actually place the play in Germany - the setting just created an imaginary political setting which had specific references for us as the audience. Branagh chose a set design and costuming that was clearly from 19th Century Russia (check your history books for pictures of the Tzarist family in those days and the Russian architecture and palaces and such). I'm sure that Branagh had no intention of implying that it took place in Russia. Likely he was simply implying the kind of opulent luxury and decadence of Claudius's court against which Hamlet could remonstrate and compare that of his father as he does with the comparison between the two brothers in the closet scene. I'd be curious to see if there is a comment on the art design in the screenplay. I found it to be overdone. And if it was used for the purpose I suggested, then it was not a great choice, since it had only been a few months since the elder Hamlet's death, and even less than that since Claudius' marriage to Gertrude and his assumption to the throne. Changes that radical would hardly have had time to be accomplished. It did, however, give a beautiful image for the film and maybe that was his intention - it's part of what film directors do.

Janine

11-08-2006, 06:50 PM

msdirector. Glad you were interested in my information about the screenplay. I can see where a play director would find it very helpful, indeed.

Thanks for all your explanations. I don't know much about the costuming, since I have not looked it up. Interesting. I suppose Branagh took poetic license in this aspect of the film. I will further research that aspect.

Soon a DVD transfer will be presented to the public for sale. Since the film was shot in 60 mm, the transfer has taken longer than expected. I have a site earmarked in "my favorites" about the fan campaign to have it released. It is suppose to include some interesting commentary by Branagh and hopefully this will include comments on set design and the reason it was set in the 19th Century. Branagh is a stickler for details, so I doubt he would overlook the actual history at that time. But we will see exactly what he was intending. Mostly I believe he is very intuitive with his art choices. He loves Shakepeare and the language and poetry and I think he did want to portray a light admostphere that Hamlet lived it and not one of morbidity. It greatly contrasts with the Olivier darker, misty version. Also, in that version the set is so stark and bare. Yes, Branagh has even written that he wanted his set to show the opulance and excesses of the court. But I don't agree with you that it is overdone at all. I don't find it at all distracting to the plot or the words. Branagh's luminous set contrasts nicely with the darker aspects of the tragedy. The floor especially interests me - it seems to mimic the the "dark and light", (good and evil) and symbolise the contrasts in the play quite affectively. I love the hall of mirrors - after all, isn't Hamlet continually examining himself, and others? It works perfectly for the spying scene with Hamlet's profound speech "To be or not to be..." Also mirrors mimic deception and false images and non reality.
True enough - Hamlet gives his good regards to Fortinbras. That part is peaceful. Both Princes highly respect each other at this point, which solidifies the ending for me. I do agree that prior to this scene I do find the constant breaks in the sword fight scene interrupt the momentum and the drama uncomfortably, thus distracting us with the scenes of the invading soldiers (spliced in between). Perhaps Branagh intented it to be unsettling at that moment, who knows? or disturbing. Some director want to throw the audience off balance, so many film makers like and use this device...not that it is the right choice here. I think it distracts somewhat.
Interesting to note that the opening scene in Branagh's film reveals the late King's statue morphing into the ghost. The end scene is also that of the King's statue, but now the ghost is layed to rest - in symbolism and in our own viseral perception. Everything comes full circle and is solved, in essense. Peace now reigns. The film is satisfying in this way.

msdirector

11-08-2006, 07:03 PM

I love the hall of mirrors - after all, isn't Hamlet continually examining himself, and others? It works perfectly for the spying scene with Hamlet's profound speech "To be or not to be..." Also mirrors mimic deception and false images and non reality.

Oh, I definitely agree with this. I thought his use of the mirrors for the nunnery scene was brilliant. Not so much for any underlying thematic reasons or imagery, which of course is a valid observation, but more particularly, as a director, because of the wonderful staging of Hamlet apparently talking to himself reflected in the mirror and actually talking directly to Polonius and, more particularly, Claudius hiding behind it. It was a remarkably effective use of the set to create essentially a double meaning to everything he was saying. It was delightful, lending a sly intention to his speeches, something like a prisoner intentionally talking to the police on the other side of the mirror in the interrogation room by pretending to talk to himself while looking in the mirror. I actually applauded the scene when I saw it - in my own living room!

Interesting to note that the opening scene in Branagh's film reveals the late King's statue morphing into the ghost. The end scene is also that of the King's statue, but now the ghost is layed to rest - in symbolism and in our own viseral perception. Everything comes full circle and is solved, in essense. Peace now reigns. The film is satisfying in this way.

Ah... I had forgotten that. I guess after a more than four hour film it's easy to forget details of the beginning at the end. Well, then that makes a little more sense. It still doesn't make the ending feel effective to me, or justify the unnecessary invasion, but I do understand the imagery better now. Thanks for that. I think I'm going to have to watch the film again soon. It's been a while.

Janine

11-08-2006, 07:52 PM

Virgil

11-08-2006, 08:01 PM

Interesting to note that the opening scene in Branagh's film reveals the late King's statue morphing into the ghost. The end scene is also that of the King's statue, but now the ghost is layed to rest - in symbolism and in our own viseral perception. Everything comes full circle and is solved, in essense. Peace now reigns. The film is satisfying in this way.

See, even Branagh intuitively or perhaps consciously feels that Shakespeare's use of ghost is problemmattic. Do you hear that Regit and Shoutgrace? Even Branagh feels that the ghost motif requires resolution. But I need to admit that I now concede that Shakespeare's use of the ghost is justifiable aesthetically.

msdirector

11-08-2006, 09:08 PM

msdirector,

I just about know the film upside down, backwards and forwards! I am due for another viewing myself. I watch it every couple months. I have seen it about 10 times now, well maybe 6 or 7. I was fortunate enough to pick it up (two tape set) at a video store that was discontinuing their VHS tapes. It was in good condition and cost me - get this - 3 dollars! Sells used on Amazon for about $50 to $100.

I've had the Branagh film on VHS practically since it came out, and I've watched it several times.

I have become Hamlet obsessed, and so far I thought it the best version out there. I have seen four versions so far. I soon will view the Jacobi version, which Virgil highly recommends. Jacobi's stage performance of Hamlet actually affected Branagh so deeply he knew that very night that he wanted to become an actor and play Hamlet someday. Branagh and Jabobi are great friends and when Branagh played Hamlet on stage for the very first time Jacobi send him his small precious copy of the play, inscribed. Branagh says he cherishes it to this day. Jacobi is a lovely person and a great actor.

I've been Hamlet obsessed for years. In fact, I have VHS or DVD recordings of almost every filmed production of Shakespeare's plays including some from the Ontario Stratford festival, almost all the BBC productions, and, I think, all but one Hamlet films including the lovely atmospheric Russian version. Hamlet is the focus of my Shakespeare studies, as you might have guessed, and I could talk on the subject for hours and hours (as my husband knows, to his dismay!).

I adore Derek Jacobi! I have just about everything that he has ever done that is available on tape or DVD or CD (his audio book readings are simply magical). His BBC Hamlet is by far my favorite. In fact, the first time I saw it I did something I never do - I wrote him a "fan letter" to let him know just how inspired I was by his performance. Imagine my astonishment when I received in the mail a hand written, hand addressed note from him thanking me for my letter and actually addressing some questions I had about his interpretation. I was just floored. He is, indeed, a real gentleman and one of the best actors I've ever seen. I even have two pages on my website dedicated to him - one is a tribute to him, a retrospective of his roles through the years; and the other is still shots of his BBC Hamlet along with the dialogue clips that go with them! Fun to make, fun to look at. You're welcome to visit the site and check it out. There should be a link to the pages on my homepage plus links on my "favorites" page. If the website link isn't on my profile page, let me know and I'll give it to you if you want to see it.

I'm aware of Jacobi's relationship as a mentor to Branagh. Have you seen their documentary film Discovering Hamlet? It's a wonderful look a the rehearsal process of Branagh's first performance as Hamlet with Jacobi directing for the Rennaissance Theatre Company. Much fun and they both discuss their relationship. I love that Branagh has "repaid" him over and over by casting him in almost all of his films.

If you go to the site "Kenneth Branagh Compendium" you might be able to dig up past articles or interview of Branagh explaining his motives and intentions for Hamlet. I am pretty sure I have read some before. For a play director this site would be greatly interesting. I am a big fan of the actor and also think he has been beaten down by his English public in the past decade. He was actually better received in the USA. But in London his plays have been a big success, especially of late. I suppose that the English mostly did not like his films. They thought he sold out to commercialism. Hey, the guy had to eat. Also, he did bring Shakepeare to the masses. He started a revival, and other directors followed in his footsteps. Anyway, he is certainly passionate about Shakespeare always. The site is set up by fans, not by Branagh himself, but it is well researched. It is a nice site....worthy of your time.

I will definitely check out his site. I have a whole collection of reviews and interviews with Derek Jacobi. It will be nice to see some of Branagh as well. Actually I like Branagh's work very much, and I have nothing against his doing commercial work. I loved his Much Ado About Nothing, Henry V, Dead Again, and really liked many others. He's been a real pioneer in bringing Shakespeare to the popular eye again.

Virgil

11-08-2006, 10:13 PM

Arlene, what do you think of the BBC film of Hamlet starring Jacobi in the titled role? To me that is the classic, the version I base all others. And none have been better to me.

msdirector

11-08-2006, 11:01 PM

Arlene, what do you think of the BBC film of Hamlet starring Jacobi in the titled role? To me that is the classic, the version I base all others. And none have been better to me.

I adore it!!! See my last post to Janine. Derek Jacobi is the best.

I have always loved Shakespeare, but I had never had an real desire to direct one of his plays. From what I had seen of them, they seemed too difficult, to obscure, too literary to me. Hamlet was always my favorite, but, while I had seen many productions of Hamlet, not only on film but on the stage, until I saw Jacobi's Hamlet every production I had seen seemed two dimensional. They had focused on only one or two aspects of Hamlet - the mad Hamlet, the angry Hamlet, the emotional Hamlet, the indecisive Hamlet, the inactive (or in the case of Olivier's film, almost catatonic...) Hamlet. I had never seen a Hamlet that had any depth, that was multi-layered, that was believable as a complete human being. I didn't like the character. I didn't care about him. And I had come to believe that a complete portrayal wasn't possible.

Then I saw Derek Jacobi's Hamlet. I was stunned, amazed, transformed by what I saw. Suddenly I saw Shakespeare in an entirely different light. Jacobi illuminated the character, brought him to life, made him real for me in a way I had never seen. I believed in this person. I cared about him. I laughed with him and cried with him. All of a sudden Hamlet was a real person and one that I wanted to be a part of creating.

Sure he went over the top in a few spots. But then he wasn't directing. I've read his comments on his Hamlet and he is spot-on in everything he says. One thing that I was really disappointed in once I started researching... Jacobi had toured with Hamlet for several years before doing the BBC production. When he did HIS Hamlet, he had Hamlet do the "To be or not to be" speech directly to Ophelia rather than the way it is traditionally done as a soliloquy. I love that choice and believe in it intensely (it changes so many wonderful things about Ophelia) and I would have loved to have seen him do it. But the director for the BBC version insisted that he do it traditionally (probably because the close ups of him look so amazing on film).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v601/MsDirector/HamletBBCJacobi1.jpg
I was disappointed and told him so when I wrote him, and he mentioned that in his note back to me.

Interestingly enough Jacobi directed Kenneth Branagh in that approach in Branagh's first production as Hamlet for Rennaissance Theatre Company. The rehearsals were filmed for Discovering Hamlet and if you haven't seen it, you should.

By the way, I have stills of his Hamlet on a tribute page on my website. Check it out if you'd like.

Not surprisingly, I love Jacobi's "Claudius" in Branagh's Hamlet as well. Definitely the best, most dimensional, real Claudius I've ever seen. I have this strange fantasy to be able to see Hamlet with Jacobi playing both parts - as a young man as Hamlet and in his older incarnation as Claudius, playing against each other. Wouldn't that just be something!

Janine

11-09-2006, 03:19 PM

Great stuff, Arlene. A wealth of information here. Can't wait to check out your website. How old was Jacobi when he started playing Hamlet? I take it that is his photo on your post. He looks quite young...different. I have certainly heard of "Discovering Hamlet". I will check the current price on Amazon. I have wanted it for sometime. Heard it was great!
Jacobi is amazing. I loved him in everything I have seen him in. He was great as Claudius. What an interesting fantasy to see him playing both roles. Maybe someday with computer generation (CG) that can happen, who knows. I will post more later on. For once I am all talked out. You have given me much to think about. Thanks! Janine
PS: tried to post this last night - site must have been down (?)

msdirector

11-09-2006, 04:03 PM

How old was Jacobi when he started playing Hamlet? I take it that is his photo on your post. He looks quite young...different.

Yep -- that's him right in the middle of "To be or not to be" - right about "the undiscovered country" line, I believe. He does look young - he's always complained that he looks too much younger than his real age which made it harder for him to get cast in roles that he wanted. Actually, he was born in 1938 and when he played Hamlet for the BBC in 1980 he was about 42! Definitely didn't look his age - and in this case it was an asset. My website page of his Hamlet stills is at: http://arlenestage.homestead.com/JacobiHamlet.html
My tribute page to him is at: http://arlenestage.homestead.com/SirDerekJacobi.html

I have certainly heard of "Discovering Hamlet". I will check the current price on Amazon. I have wanted it for sometime. Heard it was great!
Jacobi is amazing. I loved him in everything I have seen him in. He was great as Claudius.

I have yet to find anything that I don't like him in. He has done some wonderful films (just about all of which I have!). A year or so before Hamlet, he also played Richard II in the same BBC series. Some particularly good, non-Shakespearean, roles he did (available on film from either movies or tv specials) are, of course, his career-defining I, Claudius, an absolutely mesmerizing Cyrano de Bergerac, Breaking the Code (which he did on stage and screen), The Fool which is an amazing and delightful piece of acting in which he played a dual role, and, of course, the whole Cadfael series (for which he has also done the reading for the audiobooks series and is simply lyrical in, playing all the roles beautifully). I could go on - there are so many, but those are among the best. Somebody - I forgot who - called him a "man who speak arias"! I can't think of a better way to describe the most beautiful speaking voice I've ever heard.

Virgil

11-09-2006, 04:12 PM

I love Jacobi in just about everything I've seen him in too. I think he defined the role in that 1980 BBC Hamlet version, at least in my opinion, and he may also have defined the role of Claudius too in that Branagh version.

Janine

11-09-2006, 06:15 PM

Arlene, thanks for the links to your sites. I love them! The photos are great - good job! I hope to explore them more thoroughly tonight. I am anxious to see this version of "Hamlet" after seeing the photos. You can tell it is something very fine. His facial expressions are wonderful. I have liked and admired his work for quite a long time now. His "Richard II" also looks to be of particular interest to me. I read most of Shakespeare's history plays. I enjoyed them very much. I have Branagh performing Richard III on CD's. If interested I can burn some for you. They are great to listen to on headphones. You feel like you are onstage with the actors. I would love to see Shakespearer's preceeding play, "Richard II", with Jacobi. His "Tempest" and his "MacBeth" look terrific, too. Gee, how have I missed out on all of this fine viewing? Are they available here in the US or on Amazon?
I loved Jacobi in "Cracking the Code". He was amazing! I also heard him narrating "Nijinski" which is his reading of N's diary. It is so touching the way he reads it, fabulous delivery and voice....smooth as silk. Unfortunately, I have not seen "I Claudius", but I really want to now. I have heard it is great from friends of mine. I really did not know the man had done so many productions and films. I will have to check into it further. He was great in "Dead Again", and in Branagh's "Hamlet", I agree with you and Virgil on that last point.
PS: Arlene, I will answer in full your email later tonight. It interests me greatly. Must go eat dinner now. Janine

msdirector

11-09-2006, 07:17 PM

I have Branagh performing Richard III on CD's. If interested I can burn some for you. They are great to listen to on headphones. You feel like you are onstage with the actors.

I actually have a bunch of CD's of Shakespeare plays and I also love listening to them. In a way, for me as a director, they are more fun than watching a performance (except for Derek Jacobi) because I can visualize my own staging while I listen. Let me know which ones you have and I'll check my own and, if I can figure out how to burn CD's of the ones I have maybe we can exchange some that we don't have.

I would love to see Shakespeare's preceeding play, "Richard II", with Jacobi. His "Tempest" and his "MacBeth" look terrific, too. Gee, how have I missed out on all of this fine viewing? Are they available here in the US or on Amazon?

Actually, the BBC Richard II is available on DVD, as are all the BBC plays. Amazon has it in the BBC Shakespeare's Histories Giftbox (5 histories for $130). But you can get the individual DVD's online at http://www.documentary-video.com/displayitem.cfm?vid=812 for $35 each if you don't want all five.

Unfortunately, his Macbeth and Tempest were only done on stage and, as far as I know, at the moment have not been filmed.

I also heard him narrating "Nijinski" which is his reading of N's diary. It is so touching the way he reads it, fabulous delivery and voice....smooth as silk. Unfortunately, I have not seen "I Claudius", but I really want to now. I have heard it is great from friends of mine.

I have Nijinski also. And I highly recommend I, Claudius. The way his characer changes throughout the series and the way he deals with the physical challenges of the role - the stutter and the limp and the general body language - is an outstanding demonstration of excellence in physical acting skills, to add to his voice and his exceptional characterization skills. It's interesting though, that you actually see very little of Jacobi through the first, I think, 2 episodes of the series. His character narrates and then gradually becomes more and more the focus as this story of the early Roman Emperors procedes. It's a lovely piece of work - and the show is filled with a huge number of big name and big talent actors, so the whole lives up to the strength of its star.

Janine

11-09-2006, 07:55 PM

Arlene, then you would recommend Richard II? I will look into it. I can't afford much now with Christmas coming, but may buy one BBC production at least. I have quite a few productions of audio CD sets, Shakespeare. I like the idea of exchanging. That would double both our collections. I will send you a list in the personal email. I just wrote to you, to answer yours. I have to acquire a copy of "I Claudius" - it is on my "must see" list. Interesting what you said about him being absent from the first parts. Maybe my library can locate it for me - it is free to take out, but you can have it only 2 days.

I too, love to listen to the audio CD's. My imagination fills in the rest and I can set it in any type setting to suit me. I am an artist, so I am quite imaginative. I usually listen to them before I drift off to sleep. Sometimes they lull me to sleep. They seem so personal - the voices and the intonations in them. Shakespeare's poetry takes on a purity when no other distractions are present.

I also collect film scores. I have almost all of Branagh's Shakespeare films by Patrick Doyle. They are so great and reminiscent of the films. I will post more later perhaps. I am going out now. Janine

Petrarch's Love

11-12-2006, 03:12 AM

Wow, this topic has certainly generated a lot of discussion. Forgive me if I repeat anything that's already been covered in my comments. I tried to read over most of the posts but I may have missed something.

I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing

Of course, given my chosen profession, I'm afraid none of my comments may be deemed acceptable. :rolleyes: :lol:

I just thought I'd add a little note on Shakespeare's sources and the context for the ghost figure in Elizabethan drama. As far as ghosts are concerned, the Belleforest version of the story (a French translation through which Elizabethans would have encountered the original Saxo Grammaticus version of the story) contains two references to the "shade" (ombre) of Hamlet's father. One of these allusions to the shade of the father occurs in the scene between the Hamlet character and his mother, which may explain why the ghost resurfaces at that point in Shakespeare's play. If I remember right, though, this reference to a "shade" is somewhat ambiguous in that the shade isn't necessarily present in the scene (i.e. a real ghost walking about), but may be merely alluded to.

The predominant influence on the ghost in Shakespeare's Hamlet is undoubtably the Senecan tradition of bloodthirsty ghosts who rise up and cry for revenge. Imitations of the Senecan ghost crowded the Elizabethan stage. It was pretty popular to start off a play with a vengeful ghost in this period. Thomas Kyd's Spanish Tragedy provides a famous and convenient example. It starts in a prologue with the ghost of the murdered Andrea in conversation with the allegorical figure of Revenge. These two figures reappear periodically throughout the course of the play to comment on the progress of the revenge, and they sum everything up at the end in a nice tidy (though incredibly bloody) conclusion. The text of the so-called Ur-Hamlet (the play which preceeded and likely inspired Shakespeare's) no longer exists, so we can only guess at what exactly it contained. It is generally believed to have been penned by Kyd as well, and accounts of people at the time remark on the memorable character of the ghost who cried repeatedly for revenge for bloody murder, so it seems likely that it followed a similar pattern to The Spanish Tragedy and other plays in which the ghost provides a framing structure in which the revenge plot unfolds.

Given the context of these plays, which would follow a logical pattern (ghost introduces his grievance in prologue-things happen-ghost comments-revenge is acheived-ghost sums up and goes off satisfied) it seems likely that Shakespeare may have been consciously trying to vary convention. Instead of having the ghost air his grievances to the audience in a prologue, Shakespeare introduces the spirit as he would appear naturally (or rather supernaturally) in the real world. Rather than allowing the ghost to act as the predictable guide through the process of revenge in the play, he has the ghost deliver his message and then vanish with no further guidance (though a few other enigmatic appearances), leaving the audience as perplexed and mystified as the characters onstage, and as mystified as one imagines they might be encountering a ghost in their own lives. Thus, in comparison to other plays of the time, it would seem that Shakespeare is rejecting a more convenient ghostly type which other writers successfully employed to propell their dramas in favor of a more ambiguous and perplexing spirit. This, of course, ties in with the conclusion that everyone's come to regarding the aesthetic choice in favor of a "mysterious and unfathomable" nature for the ghost.

As for the more recent discussion that's started up on Hamlet versions, I'm also a fan of the the Jakobi, though I haven't seen it in a long time, and I agree with MsDirector in that I wasn't a fan of the last scene in Branagh's Hamlet. I had somehow missed or forgotten the statue/ghost connection too. Thanks for bringing that up Jenine.

I have this strange fantasy to be able to see Hamlet with Jacobi playing both parts - as a young man as Hamlet and in his older incarnation as Claudius, playing against each other. Wouldn't that just be something!

What a great idea. I think we should start going on the cgi effects pronto. :D

msdirector

11-12-2006, 04:25 AM

... the original Saxo Grammaticus version of the story) contains two references to the "shade" (ombre) of Hamlet's father. One of these allusions to the shade of the father occurs in the scene between the Hamlet character and his mother, which may explain why the ghost resurfaces at that point in Shakespeare's play. If I remember right, though, this reference to a "shade" is somewhat ambiguous in that the shade isn't necessarily present in the scene (i.e. a real ghost walking about), but may be merely alluded to.

Hi Petrarch! Welcome to the fray.

Thanks for that note on the Saxo Grammaticus version of the story. Of course that story contains a great deal that isn't in Shakespeare's version. I particularly enjoyed that, as in Shakespeare's Hamlet, "Amleth" kills the "Polonius" character (the King's trusted councillor) hiding in his mother's room. He then drags him out and "cutting his body into morsels, he seethed it in boiling water, and flung it through the mouth of an open sewer for the swine to eat, bestrewing the stinking mire with his hapless limbs." Only then does he return to his mother and berate her over her relationship with the his father's brother, comparing her to "the mares [who] couple with the vanquishers of their mates; for brute beasts are naturally incited to pair indiscriminately; and it would seem that thou, like them, hast clean forgot thy first husband." Lovely and quite brutal.

However, nowhere in that particular scene could I find any reference to a "shade" either in the description or in Amleth's words. It might be a trick of the translation - the one I'm looking at is online at http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book3.html
The version there doesn't indicate if it is translated from Belleforest's version, but I would assume so. The only reference to anything resembling it seems more like it refers to the Claudius character (Feng) than to the Ghost. Amleth, in berating his mother he says, refering to his pretence of madness:
"As for me, not idly do I wear the mask of folly; for I doubt not that he who destroyed his brother will riot as ruthlessly in the blood of his kindred. Therefore it is better to choose the garb of dulness than that of sense, and to borrow some protection from a show of utter frenzy. Yet the passion to avenge my father still burns in my heart; but I am watching the chances, I await the fitting hour. There is a place for all things; against so merciless and dark spirit must be used the deeper devices of the mind."

The text of the so-called Ur-Hamlet (the play which preceeded and likely inspired Shakespeare's) no longer exists, so we can only guess at what exactly it contained. It is generally believed to have been penned by Kyd as well, and accounts of people at the time remark on the memorable character of the ghost who cried repeatedly for revenge for bloody murder, so it seems likely that it followed a similar pattern to The Spanish Tragedy and other plays in which the ghost provides a framing structure in which the revenge plot unfolds.

I agree that the tradition of the use of ghosts stems from Seneca and Elizabethan tragedy was full of them. And, as you say, there was, essentially, a "formula" for their use.

Thus, in comparison to other plays of the time, it would seem that Shakespeare is rejecting a more convenient ghostly type which other writers successfully employed to propell their dramas in favor of a more ambiguous and perplexing spirit. This, of course, ties in with the conclusion that everyone's come to regarding the aesthetic choice in favor of a "mysterious and unfathomable" nature for the ghost.

This makes alot of sense to me. Shakespeare seemed to go out of his way to break tradition in many ways. His tragedies did not follow Aristotle's unities or other formalities of classical tragedy. He took the basics in many of his plays, but changed them, rearranged them, created dramatic structure that was revolutionary in some ways. It seems likely that he took the basic "ghost" that his audiences were familiar with, and then "tweaked" it, made it "real" and therefore more mysterious, more unfathomable, and, in its own way, more fearsome than any of those over-the-top ghosts preceding him simply because it WAS so real.

I still feel like he might have had it appear at the end of the play - it seems right and fitting that it would - but without the dialogue that would include it in the stage directions and that would convert it back to the traditional summing up (much like some of the epilogues in his earlier plays). But, of course, we will never know.

As for "young" Jacobi playing Hamlet opposite is "older-ego" Claudius:

What a great idea. I think we should start going on the cgi effects pronto. :D

I'll have to check with my film-editing/program designer son to see if he could actually do anything like that. What a fun project that would be for someone! But which version of the rest of the play do we use?

Virgil

11-12-2006, 10:26 AM

Of course, given my chosen profession, I'm afraid none of my comments may be deemed acceptable. :rolleyes: :lol:

:blush: :lol: :lol: Perhaps a bit over the top. But you also didn't include the full sentence. Here's what I completely wrote:

Hahaha, LOL. You just put the kiss of death to him. That probably means he's definitely wrong. I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing, unless those few who were writers themselves.
And you definitely qualify as someone who writes too. :D

Petrarch's Love

11-12-2006, 02:42 PM

Thanks for that note on the Saxo Grammaticus version of the story. Of course that story contains a great deal that isn't in Shakespeare's version. I particularly enjoyed that, as in Shakespeare's Hamlet, "Amleth" kills the "Polonius" character (the King's trusted councillor) hiding in his mother's room. He then drags him out and "cutting his body into morsels, he seethed it in boiling water, and flung it through the mouth of an open sewer for the swine to eat, bestrewing the stinking mire with his hapless limbs." Only then does he return to his mother and berate her over her relationship with the his father's brother, comparing her to "the mares [who] couple with the vanquishers of their mates; for brute beasts are naturally incited to pair indiscriminately; and it would seem that thou, like them, hast clean forgot thy first husband." Lovely and quite brutal.

I know, it's great stuff. I wouldn't want to meet a medieval Dane in a dark alley. :eek:

However, nowhere in that particular scene could I find any reference to a "shade" either in the description or in Amleth's words. It might be a trick of the translation - the one I'm looking at is online at http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book3.html
The version there doesn't indicate if it is translated from Belleforest's version, but I would assume so. The only reference to anything resembling it seems more like it refers to the Claudius character (Feng) than to the Ghost. Amleth, in berating his mother he says, refering to his pretence of madness:
"As for me, not idly do I wear the mask of folly; for I doubt not that he who destroyed his brother will riot as ruthlessly in the blood of his kindred. Therefore it is better to choose the garb of dulness than that of sense, and to borrow some protection from a show of utter frenzy. Yet the passion to avenge my father still burns in my heart; but I am watching the chances, I await the fitting hour. There is a place for all things; against so merciless and dark spirit must be used the deeper devices of the mind."
I was working from memory when I posted last night so I looked up the pertinent excerpt from the Belleforest this morning. I didn't get the chance to read it through entirely but the version of the Saxo story you posted the link to seems to be a translation of the original latin rather than a translation of Belleforest's translation. That said, I found that the reference to shades in Belleforest was even more ambiguous than I had remembered. The pertinent line is as follows:

"c'est un desir effrene qui a conduit la fille de Rorique a embrasser le tyran Fengon sans respespecter les ombres de Horvvendille indigne de si estrange traictement, et que son frere l'occist traitreusement, et que sa femme la trahist laschement laquelle il a tant bien traitee."

My (humble) translation of the above:

It is an unbridled desire which leads the daughter of Roric to embrace the tyrant Fengon [Claudius] without respect for the shade of Horwendille [Hamlet's father], indignant at his unnatural treatment, both that his brother killed him traiterously, and that his wife meanly betrayed him when he had treated her so well.

So in the scene between Amleth [Hamlet] and his mother in the Belleforest version there is mention of the spirit of Amleth's father and of what that spirit is probably feeling in that scene, but he is not meant to be present as a real ghost. Since the ghost was already "haunting" the lines of the Belleforest, it's possible this mention of the shade made Shakespeare think, "hey that's a great scene to have the ghost come in," but the I think the influence is probably debatable (come to think on it everything about Hamlet seemst to be debateable :lol: ).

I'll have to check with my film-editing/program designer son to see if he could actually do anything like that. What a fun project that would be for someone! But which version of the rest of the play do we use?

Oooh, it could turn into something like fantasy baseball for Shakespeareans. :D Quick everyone, who do we edit in for Ophelia? Polonius?

Perhaps a bit over the top. But you also didn't include the full sentence. Here's what I completely wrote:
Quote:
Hahaha, LOL. You just put the kiss of death to him. That probably means he's definitely wrong. I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing, unless those few who were writers themselves.
And you definitely qualify as someone who writes too.

Ha! A loophole, a palpable loophole. :D I'd better warn my colleagues to start dabbling in poetry quick, since if they don't write they evidently have no chance of winning the respect of their students. :p

Janine

11-12-2006, 03:53 PM

I am back and listening. I read all the new posts....some great stuff here. Glad the long "ghost discussion" has not faded away. I have learned much here that I did not know before; it is interesting reading actual script that the play "Hamlet" was based on. Some real bloody stuff here. Wow, I agree - would not want to meet a medieval Dane in a dark alley!
Good job everyone....thanks! :thumbs_up from me, too!

Sorry it was Msdirector that said "welcome to the fray". My mistake:blush:

Virgil

11-12-2006, 08:28 PM

Ha! A loophole, a palpable loophole. :D I'd better warn my colleagues to start dabbling in poetry quick, since if they don't write they evidently have no chance of winning the respect of their students. :p

Well, it's all these teachers who are into deconstruction or New Historicism or whatever is the latest fad within your teaching circles. You know I feel how useless that is.

Janine

11-12-2006, 10:29 PM

I am not in the know. What is "deconstruction or New Historicism"?

Virgil

11-12-2006, 10:52 PM

Janine, they are recent cirtical approaches to literature or as some call it literary theory. Here's a quick reference to literary theory, written I might add by people who have never created literature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory. You can click the various links to the each school of theory for more info on each. If you have any questions on any you can ask me, and I will try to explain. But for the most part, I am definitely biased.

Janine

11-13-2006, 02:33 PM

Read a little of the site last night but will read more and put my own two cents into the pot in another post. Thanks for the link....very helpful.

Petrarch's Love

11-13-2006, 02:51 PM

I don't really want to get into a debate right now about the merits and demerits of literary theory, but since Janine asked about it, I thought I'd point out that literary theory is just that, theories (one might also say philosophies) about how to understand, approach, and sometimes even how to define literature. At their best these theoretical ideas function to stimulate new ways of thinking for either scholars in the field or people who have similarly made an in depth study of literature and want to test and challenge their thinking against some interesting ideas. At its worst theory can become a lot of meaningless jargon that intellectuals think makes them sound smarter than everyone else and/or scholars can get so entranced by the theoretical concepts that they allow the theory to overshadow the literary text itself when they teach. This can sometimes get to the point where "Theory" is used as an excuse to introduce political bias into the classroom (which I believe is part of Virg.'s objections here). You'll also run into professors who get so deeply into their pet theory (often the popular one at the time) that they use it as the be all and end all of every interpretation they offer, which is not my personal stlye at all. When I do use theory I'm selecting among a range of ideas to find the one that seems to productively agree or disagree with my initial reading of the text, not trying to fit my reading of the text into the box of a theory I've already decided must be right.

I have to say that I've got a lot that I both agree and disagree with regarding both Deconstruction (which is a movement associated with the philosopher Jaques Derrida, who said he didn't understand it himself if that gives you any idea :lol: ), and New Historicism (which I have seen modelled with great intelligence and common sense as a way of thinking by someone who was a wonderful mentor and teacher to me in my early career, but have also seen go far awry in other hands). New Historicism (which I know the most about) has been beneficial to scholars in that it returned the field of literary studies to an interest in historical research after historical context had been out of style for awhile (in this sense, it's something of a return to the Historicist movement in literary study around the turn of the century--these things tend to go in cycles--though New Historicists disagree with many attitudes of "old" historicists). New Historicism also encouraged increased archival research as a method as well as encouraging scholars to examine a wide range of previously marginal or ignored texts, both of which have led to some interesting discoveries/contributions to the study of literature, and it made scholars re-examine some of the attitudes they took for granted about both history itself and canonical literary texts (ans examining and re-examining, even if you end up deciding what you thought in the first place was right after all, is crucial to keeping that all-important open mind that makes for a successful teacher and scholar). Probably the biggest problem with the New Historicism has been that the interest in more marginal texts associated with this theory has led to an inordinate amount of teaching and scholarship being drawn toward what many (including me) would term non-literary texts and away from what you might call the "Great Books." Certain aspects of the theory might also be accused of opening up the possibilities of professors introducing their own liberal political agendas into the classroom, though I would say other theoretical movements have contributed more to this (marxist and feminist theory being a couple of obvious ones).

It's really hard to sum up either of these theories in a brief post, it's something that would be better gradually introduced in the form of some pertinent theoretical essays, or introduced at length in a course on the subject. Virg.'s Wiki article looks pretty good. I thought the definitions in this glossary seemed fairly decent too (though I just glanced at the New Historicist one and it's pretty brief): http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/glossary/headerindex.html
Of course, theory isn't at all necessary to have a good understanding of literature (contrary to what some pretentious types may have you believe), and I probably wouldn't teach Theory to most undergrads or to a group who hadn't already done a lot of reading in literature (not because Theory is a "higher" skill, but because it can only be of much use or interest if you've already got a pretty strong idea about your own reactions to a work). There now, I seem to have talked your ear off. It must be obvious that I'm an academic, given how long I seem to have gone on about this subject. Remember Virg., I write, so I'm probably not all bad, even if I have rubbed elbows with deconstructionists on occasion. :D

Janine

11-13-2006, 09:52 PM

There now, I seem to have talked your ear off. It must be obvious that I'm an academic, given how long I seem to have gone on about this subject. Remember Virg., I write, so I'm probably not all bad, even if I have rubbed elbows with deconstructionists on occasion. :D

Glad you said that, Petrarch's Love, I usually can't stop writing and my posts get really long, ah.... to my dismay. The information and explanation you have given me really cleared things up. I had looked at the Wikepedia entry, but had not read it completely. You made it so much clearer. I was going to ask Virgil, if in essense, the whole theory thing was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. You were honest and showed both sides. I do think there are people who speak in this jargon just to be above everyone else and untouchable in a way...to appear superior or something. A true scholar is humble and admits there is much he does not know. At any rate I commend you on a good description of both words. This helped me very much. You are very knowlegable. Thanks!

Virgil

11-13-2006, 10:28 PM

IThis can sometimes get to the point where "Theory" is used as an excuse to introduce political bias into the classroom (which I believe is part of Virg.'s objections here).

That is only one of my objections. But that is true. Why are all these theories left wing?

But my main disgust is that they diminish the work as art. They reduce the work as a social phenomena. Even your use of the term "text" reduces the art to anthropological shard or a remnant. Instead of using our understanding of the social circumstances to understand the work of art, we use the "text" to understand the society in which it was written. In New Historicism any text is equally important, so that the telephone book is equal to Shakespeare's works.

And why is this mostly in literature? Do art historians discuss deconstructon? Or music historians discuss music in terms New Historicism?

Janine, it's mumbo-jumbo.

Petrarch's Love

11-14-2006, 12:48 AM

The information and explanation you have given me really cleared things up. I had looked at the Wikepedia entry, but had not read it completely. You made it so much clearer. I was going to ask Virgil, if in essense, the whole theory thing was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. You were honest and showed both sides. I do think there are people who speak in this jargon just to be above everyone else and untouchable in a way...to appear superior or something. A true scholar is humble and admits there is much he does not know. At any rate I commend you on a good description of both words. This helped me very much. You are very knowlegable. Thanks!

I'm glad my input could be helpful. I'm actually quite wary of theory myself, but I see that it has some uses (especially to someone in the profession) if approached properly. You're certainly right about the untouchable jargon speakers. When I first came to graduate school it sometimes felt like I was trying to learn a foreign language just to hold a conversation with certain scholars who shall remain unnamed. :lol:

But my main disgust is that they diminish the work as art. They reduce the work as a social phenomena. Even your use of the term "text" reduces the art to anthropological shard or a remnant. Instead of using our understanding of the social circumstances to understand the work of art, we use the "text" to understand the society in which it was written. In New Historicism any text is equally important, so that the telephone book is equal to Shakespeare's works.

Yes, I often similarly resent the de-emphasis of the importance of art in the study of literature. I have seen excellent scholars who are able to engage in theoretical debates without losing sight of the poem, play, essay, meditation, novel etc. as artwork but, given the majority of scholarly writing, this is apparently harder than it looks. :p There's no reason why New Historicism need exclude considering literature as a work of art, or that exclusion need be seen as the basic project of the theory. In fact I was recently reading an interview with Stephen Greenblat (the scholar who coined the term New Historicism) in which he spoke frequently of his love of great literary texts as works of art and of our desire to connect with and understand what that art is giving us.
I think we've been around this problem with the term "text" before, which I personally don't in any way mean to connote an "anthropological shard or remnant" (though I understand where this objection is coming from, and have even made it myself in some circumstances). I'm using the word "text" in something of the same way that musicians might refer to "scores" or artists might refer to "works." How would you, for example, conveniently refer to the "poem, play, sermon, novel etc" that I referred to earlier without using this list over and over again (this gets pretty tiresome) and without using the word "text?" I'm not being sarcastic; I would genuinely love a synonym I could use for this word if you have one to suggest.
The extreme version of New Historicism would be that the telephone book is equal to Shakespeare, but it is certainly possible to extract useful ideas from the theory without carrying them so far. I think the main problem with theory is that scholars tend to irresponsibly (and ironically) treat it almost as fact, and so rather than using the theory to enhance their core understanding and/or reason for the study of poems, plays, novels etc. as art, they instead turn the theory itself into the thing that primarily guides them and end up carrying the theory to its extremes.

And why is this mostly in literature? Do art historians discuss deconstructon? Or music historians discuss music in terms New Historicism?

Yes, I've been in Art History classes in which both Deconstruction and New Historicism were topics of discussion. I'm not as personally familiar with the musical world but I gather they do have their own brand of "mumbo jumbo." I'll agree that theory is particularly insiduous in English departments, and I wish there was far, far less of it, but I do understand the basic reasoning as to how these theories should function ideally.

Janine, it's mumbo-jumbo.

A fair amount of it is, so I agree with you there more than you may realize. :nod:

Janine

11-14-2006, 03:25 AM

A number of good points are brought up here by both Petrarch and Virgil. I sometimes think that texts and novels can be over-theorized. If only we could talk to the dead author and ask his opinion on his work or if we could ask, better yet, what he meant or what his exact intentions were. Sometimes one needs to see that the interpretation is individual, such as the quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I am not sure if I am making sense (it is late), but I can't help but consider that over analysising works of art, poetry, literature and music can sometimes spoil the inner deeply felt experience.
I am currently studying D.H. Lawrence and I am caught up in what one could probably term "New Historicism", considering the surfacing of many new letters and documents. It is a study of Lawrence's history and how it impacted his work. Is that the essense of Historicism? In my reading I am trying to absorb all of his life and its periods, and all of his motivations in his works and his theories/philosophies, which actually go through many stages and tranformations, as you probably know. It highly interests me, but one has to read it as theory and understand that is all it is, as Petrarch, I believe, is saying. Don't let the analysis be the most important thing in the end. P - is that what you meant? I am so caught up in the research lately, that I have to stop myself periodically and say - what did this author/man feel, and what do I feel when I read his work? Isn't that the important thing? The deep experience seems to me the vital core of the reading of any great work of literature, or viewing any great work of art. Relying heavily on scholarly terms and dissections, I often wonder if the whole story or whole picture is somehow lost in the course of tearing it appart. Perhaps that is when it all becomes a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and departs from the real experience that one first felt when reading the novel or experiencing the art. Maybe Lawrence would call it head verses heart verses "blood", as he liked to term it. I hope this makes sense since I am far from being a scholar and I humbly beseech you instead, to see me as an sensitive artist. Artists "feel" the text or the painting, interpretaton comes second.
There is a beautiful dialect poem, entitled "Violets" that Lawrence recited for Frieda and Professor Weekly (he was a "word" scholar) the first time Lawrence met them. Professor Weekly asks Lawrence the meaning of some of the words. Lawrence politely defines them. Lawrence asks Freida if she understood the words and she simply replies to him, "No, I did not understand any of the words, but I did understand the whole poem." Later she tells him she likes the poem very much and asks him "Is your poem not about the smell of violets, and the smell of death?" To me this example sums up what I have been trying to say. Yes, L's work is full of rich symbolism, but so much of his work intuitively flowed from the very core of his being. He wrote rapidly and the words poured out of him instinctively. He did not analysis as he went along. He wrote as he was compelled to write from "a deep well within", as many authors do. Artists do a similar thing when the flow is right and the subconsious takes over and one loses oneself in the work. The magic comes from within, and an artist can not even begin to explain how it occurs. It just does; I know this from experience. When the work is flowing the work is felt or is coming from that same "deep well" (subconsious or emotions or undefinable).

Petrarch's Love

11-14-2006, 05:09 AM

Thank you for a lovely post, Janine. I agree that the greatest part of interacting with literature is the feeling of it.

I am currently studying D.H. Lawrence and I am caught up in what one could probably term "New Historicism", considering the surfacing of many new letters and documents. It is a study of Lawrence's history and how it impacted his work. Is that the essense of Historicism? In my reading I am trying to absorb all of his life and its periods, and all of his motivations in his works and his theories/philosophies, which actually go through many stages and tranformations, as you probably know.

All of this would be considered historical background and biographical material, which is of course secondary to the original text (in this case the original text beeing Lawrence's novels and poems). Any work that deals with this type of historical background can be termed "historicist" and the this type of inquiry can also to some extent be considered "New Historicist," so yes that's broadly what we're talking about. There are some distinctions, however, between the way Historicists and New Historicists approach and view history. New Historicism is interested in how literary works relate to and are reflected in other, often non-literary works of the same time period--and often less well known or seemingly insignificant works--whereas old Historicists tend to solely focus on major literary texts and their relation to the more famous and prominent philosophies, events, etc. of the time period. New Historicists are interested in how our position as present day readers shapes our understanding of and judgement of literary and historical texts we read, whereas older Historicism tends to discourage making value judgments about the past. New Historicist theory tries to complicate and question the way we think about history and the place of different literary texts within history as well as the relation of literary texts to other parts of the culture of the time. So the point is that what these theories are offering are, first of all the suggestion that doing the sort of archival research you're doing (looking into letters and documents of the time) is something worth doing, and second of all, a few different ways to think about approaching and trying to understand a past time period, and what that time period has to do with those wonderful books you've been reading and enjoying. :)

Don't let the analysis be the most important thing in the end. P - is that what you meant?

In a nutshell. :)

I am so caught up in the research lately, that I have to stop myself periodically and say - what did this author/man feel, and what do I feel when I read his work? Isn't that the important thing? The deep experience seems to me the vital core of the reading of any great work of literature, or viewing any great work of art. Relying heavily on scholarly terms and dissections, I often wonder if the whole story or whole picture is somehow lost in the course of tearing it appart. Perhaps that is when it all becomes a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and departs from the real experience that one first felt when reading the novel or experiencing the art. Maybe Lawrence would call it head verses heart verses "blood", as he liked to term it. I hope this makes sense since I am far from being a scholar and I humbly beseech you instead, to see me as an sensitive artist. Artists "feel" the text or the painting, interpretaton comes second.

Scholars (good ones anyway) also feel the text first and last. If you can't feel a text I don't know how or why you should study it. And don't ever be humble about being a sensitive artist. If you have been moved deeply by a novel or a poem then you've got the point. More research might make your understanding and appreciation for the text greater but really the rest, as they say, is gravy. ;)

Thanks for the story about Lawrence. Say, if you guys don't already have a chat going I don't know about, you and Virg. should start up a thread, since he's our resident Lawrence expert.

I think the quote I need to end this response (and possibly this unseemly detour from the proper ghostly subject of this thread?) is this one, which perhaps we can all agree on:

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, --that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Virgil

11-14-2006, 08:23 AM

The irony is that D.H. Lawrence would have absolutely HATED this critical theory. "The novel is the book of life," D.H. Lawrence from "On Why The Novel Matters."

Synonym for "text"? I use "work" or I'll be specific and say novel, poem, story, etc.

Yes, I've been in Art History classes in which both Deconstruction and New Historicism were topics of discussion. I'm not as personally familiar with the musical world but I gather they do have their own brand of "mumbo jumbo." I'll agree that theory is particularly insiduous in English departments, and I wish there was far, far less of it, but I do understand the basic reasoning as to how these theories should function ideally.
You're right, I've seen it, and you're right English departments are the most fanatical on this. Why do you think?

Petrarch's Love

11-14-2006, 01:58 PM

The irony is that D.H. Lawrence would have absolutely HATED this critical theory. "The novel is the book of life," D.H. Lawrence from "On Why The Novel Matters."

Yeah, I was posting late last night in the middle of writing something else, so I didn't mention it, but it did occur to me that I don't usually think of Lawrence as a great candidate for New Historicist reading. Obviously Janine's approach of looking into letters and background is pretty straightforward and interesting, but trying to stick too New Historicist a slant on that in relation to Lawrence does seem strained. I think the New Historicsim is probably of most use (if it's any at all ;)) in a period like mine in the Renaissance where we're so far removed from the historical period that study of the historical context of a work is almost necessary to understanding a lot about it. At that point debates over how to approach the historical context of literary texts suddenly become interesting (well, to some geeky few at least :D ).

Synonym for "text"? I use "work" or I'll be specific and say novel, poem, story, etc.

Yes, I realized after I posted that "work" is also possible and I do use it. I think the reason I tend to use "work" less is that it can be more generally interpreted to mean different works of art (paintings, music, etc.). I do a lot of research involving the comparison of the visual and verbal arts, and using the word "text" can sometimes make it clear when I'm referring to works in the written tradition rather than works in the visual tradition. It's a more specific term than "work." Obviously referring to a play as a play is great, but I'm talking about instances when I'm referring generally to a potentially wide range of literary forms. It's also just shop talk. Editors refer to the "text" and people literally since the middle ages have used the word "text" to refer to the original written work as opposed to secondary material (I recall Wycliff, for example, referring to the reading of the "text" of his translation of the psalms as opposed to the glosses), so this is hardly a word or a usage that's been introduced with the New Historicists (though they do have their own special brand of "text"). I guess it's just the word scholars who study the written art tend to use the most. The jargonny word that you should really be objecting to (and that I refuse to use) is "cultural object." Try having a discussion with someone who describes Hamlet as a "cultural object!" Mumbo Jumbo indeed!

You're right, I've seen it, and you're right English departments are the most fanatical on this. Why do you think?

I don't know. My theory is that people who go into English are usually obsessed with words so they like playing with them and making them up, which leads to increased jargon production. Alas, if we were only less fanatical about theory. I may have taken devil's advocate here, but in relation to my fellow academics I'm probably considered the anti-theorist. :p

Janine

11-14-2006, 05:48 PM

I enjoyed and took much from both of your posts. Thanks! Petrarch's comments are quite extensive, which is after my own heart, and I like your view of things. Your definitions are good and helpful for that reason. You see the theorising for what it is and know it is not the main thing, which is the works, be it novel, art, etc. You are able to see through the hierachy and to the core of the issues.
Glad you liked the little story about the poem, "Violets". I actually saw that scene acted out in a short film, but I read it that it did take place.

As you said in your last post to Virgil.

"My theory is that people who go into English are usually obsessed with 'words' so they like playing with them and making them up, which leads to increased jargon production".
That, of course, was the point of how Frieda perceived the poem so much differently from her academic husband. She felt the poem, he saw it as a dissection.

As to Virgils comment"

"The irony is that D.H. Lawrence would have absolutely HATED this critical theory."

I totally agree. I will look into the book you mention. From what I have read about the man, I absolutely feel this would be true.
Back to Petrarch's reference to older periods, such as Renaissance or interpetting the Psalms- I can better see the use of "New Historicists", after her explanation, than in studying Lawrence. It does take a time span to see that studying the world, it's social forms and it's political aspects and attitudes, add a different perspective, and are vastly important to understanding the text, such as studying Shakespeare.

I wrote this quickly since I have to go somewhere soon. Hope it is ok - sorry could not format....no time!

Wanted to further share this with you. Lawrence said this:

"Curse the blasted, jelly-boned swines, the slimy, the belly-wriggling invertebrates, the miserable sodding rutters, the flaming sods, the sniveling, dribbling, dithering, palsied, pulse-less lot that make up England today."

This was his remark after hearing what the critics said about "Sons and Lovers".

I think this is priceless!
There is a certain poetry to it, don't you think?

Sorry - we are a bit off the track. What became of the ghost? Will he ever reappear?

Virgil

11-14-2006, 10:10 PM

Hahahaha. I love it. Lawrence was great.

The think we've done the ghost to death.:D

Janine

11-14-2006, 11:24 PM

Virgil, Glad you liked the quote - pretty original, don't you think? Did he make up some of those words? My friend from Japan sent it to me today, but the strange thing is that I read it a few days ago in L's biography. Well, they claim there is just "6 degrees of separation" between all people in the world.
I think you are right - either the ghost has been done to death, or it could just be somewhere snoozing.....:yawnb: We need to ask a new question (start a new thread) on "Hamlet" anyway....there must be zillions of things to debate.

Petrarch's Love

11-14-2006, 11:32 PM

"Curse the blasted, jelly-boned swines, the slimy, the belly-wriggling invertebrates, the miserable sodding rutters, the flaming sods, the sniveling, dribbling, dithering, palsied, pulse-less lot that make up England today."

That's a great quote Janine:lol: . Hey, if you're going to insult somebody you might as well follow the Cyrano rule and do it with some pinache! As far as I can tell none of the words are made up, which makes it even better.

Janine

11-15-2006, 12:00 AM

Thanks, Petrarch, good remark. Glad you and Virgil read the quote and laughed :lol: .
Lawence must have been pretty combative....good for him!!!...He did not run from the critics. He persisted until he got his work published somewhere. If the "palsied, pulse-less (great alleration) lot that make up England" wouldn't do it, he got the job done in America. L even cursed his enemies with style!:D

Virgil

11-15-2006, 08:27 AM

Virgil, Glad you liked the quote - pretty original, don't you think? Did he make up some of those words?
The only word i don't recgnize is "rutters." What's that?

I think you are right - either the ghost has been done to death, or it could just be somewhere snoozing.....:yawnb: We need to ask a new question (start a new thread) on "Hamlet" anyway....there must be zillions of things to debate
OK, I've always wondered about Horatio. Let me think of a question. Perhaps on the significance of his stoic philosophy.

Janine

11-15-2006, 02:34 PM

I love the Horatio character. Great idea! He definitely foils the erractic behavior of Hamlet at times - the contrast is evident and had to be intentional on Shakespeare's part. I have thought of his role often. Will you start a whole new thread, Virgil?

You might be right. In my huge heavy dictionary, I can only find words like the root word "rutty" -ruttier, ruttiest, ruttish, ruttiness, ruttily
and under this root word "rut" - rutted, rutting.
Maybe L or the author of this book mispelled "ruttier" and spelled it "rutter" - that is the nearest to it. I will check the reference in my other book to see if that is the case.

msdirector

11-15-2006, 02:55 PM

You might be right. In my huge heavy dictionary, I can only find words like the root word "rutty" -ruttier, ruttiest, ruttish, ruttiness, ruttily
and under this root word "rut" - rutted, rutting.
Maybe L or the author of this book mispelled "ruttier" and spelled it "rutter" - that is the nearest to it. I will check the reference in my other book to see if that is the case.

The second definition of "Rut" is periodic sexual excitement in certain animals. It is used colloquially to refer to rather brutish sexual relations and to those who enjoy them much like "f*ck" is used. A "rutter" is therefore, one who ruts, or who acts in a brutish or barbaric or unsophistocated or common way. It is not used in a positive way. ;)

I love the Horatio character. Great idea! He definitely foils the erractic behavior of Hamlet at times - the contrast is evident and had to be intentional on Shakespeare's part. I have thought of his role often. Will you start a whole new thread, Virgil?

Oooh... I have some questions about Horatio too... I find him one of the most intriguing characters in Hamlet because we know so little specific about him. There are lots of implications, and a number of things that seem to be not true about him, but we are give very few actual facts of his life. I would love to know just WHO everyone think Horatio is - not his place in Hamlet's life or in the structure of the play, but who Horatio is as a person. Does that need a new thread?

Magdalene

11-15-2006, 03:06 PM

Why couldn't Gertrude, the queen, see the ghost? The guards, Horatio and Hamlet saw it. This is puzzling me.
The Queen couldn't see the ghost because she was the only sane person there, Hamlet and the others were all mad.

I'm not sure what i'm doing on here. I am not a technical person, but can write. How do i do that on here? Well, i'll answer myself, i don't know.

How do i post anything on here? Please I NEED a reply. I feel very frustarted. I want to write, but can't write.
Help!! Please help!!!

msdirector

11-15-2006, 03:21 PM

I'm not sure what i'm doing on here. I am not a technical person, but can write. How do i do that on here? Well, i'll answer myself, i don't know.

How do i post anything on here? Please I NEED a reply. I feel very frustarted. I want to write, but can't write.
Help!! Please help!!!

Hi Magdalene,

You did post, both this and your post about Gertrude and the Ghost. Just because no one answered you yet doesn't mean that you didn't post. People are busy and sometimes take a while to answer... please be patient. You can see your own posts on the thread that you posted to. Simply refresh your screen - it doesn't refresh itself each time someone posts. You have to keep checking it - or you can set your profile for the forum to send you an email every time someone posts to a thread you are watching.

I'm not sure what you mean by you want to "write". If you mean ask questions and discuss topics, you are as welcome as anyone else to post and join the discussions on this forum. If you mean you want to write your own stories, then I don't think that this is the place to do that.

I'll be happy to respond to your Hamlet post in a separate answer...

Janine

11-15-2006, 03:30 PM

Hi Magdalene, Welcome to the forum! I was the same way about a week ago - frustrated. I was not sure how to format anything. I, too, found the forum by accident. If you ask Logos - that is a monitor - she can help you with anything. She steered me the right way. What seems to be your problem? You formatted fine. You write something and then you press the "Go Advanced" and you will see a tool bar and better options on posting your message, such as "Preview Post". After using this button you will see your post as it will appear. At that point you can edit if you want to.....this is very useful. Are you looking for a certain author? At the top of the page are menus and one is "Authors" I am not a tech person either. Maybe go to Main page first to find the authors option. Hope this helps you some. Don't be nervous - everyone on here is so nice and so helpful, too!

msdirector

11-15-2006, 03:36 PM

The Queen couldn't see the ghost because she was the only sane person there, Hamlet and the others were all mad.

Hi Magdalene,

I'm curious how you come to this conclusion. You seem to be implying that the Ghost is a figment of the imagination of all who saw him.

Since Hamlet is the only other person in the room when the Ghost appears to him in the closet scene, it is possible to assume that he is mad and that the Ghost's appearance in that scene is simply a product of his own mind.

While I don't believe that Hamlet was mad at all (he specifically states in the text that he will "put on an antic disposition" - that is, pretend to be mad so that he can learn the truth of the Ghost's allegations), it is certainly possible that he has gone over the edge by the time of his confrontation with Gertrude - many people do believe that he was, indeed, mad. If so, that is a possible interpretation.

However, you say "the others were all mad." That assumes that everyone who saw the Ghost was mad. I see no evidence in the text whatsoever to imply that either Horatio, Marcellus or Bernardo were in any way mad. Horatio is the very epitome of the educated, scientific, rational man - in fact, that is why he was asked to be a witness to the Ghost's presence, because he could be trusted to be rational. And Marcellus and Bernardo are a simple officer and soldier of the guard. There is no indication at all of any madness in them. And they all DID see the Ghost.

It seems in your statement that you are also implying that ALL the other characters in the play other than Gertrude are mad. Does this include Claudius, Polonius, Laertes, Ophelia, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and the other characters in the play as well? If so, do you have any evidence in the text to support this or is it simply a general concept that you have adopted. And if that is the way you see the play, then I'm curious how Gertrude escaped this general madness... :)

Janine

11-15-2006, 03:37 PM

msdirector, hi, - you did your research - good. I was not sure how to answer this distress call. Maybe it was a navigational problem. I am still trying to figure it all out. Takes time. True, I am still waiting for people to answer some of my threads. That takes time, too.

msdirector

11-15-2006, 03:42 PM

Hi Janine - not sure what research you are refering to, but if you mean for Hamlet, I've been researching him for years! :D

If you mean as far as writing on the forum is concerned - I've been writing on forums for ages and I can navigate them pretty much without trouble. But I do know that it can be confusing and frustrating the first few times until you figure out since each forum seems to be a little different.

Janine

11-15-2006, 04:03 PM

Arlene, Please forget I said anything. I should have kept out of it. Was just commenting on the posting questions, but it was too obscure.

Hope I gave your some bit of direction Magdaline. I still have trouble finding things on certain pages. It all takes time.

PS:Arlene, left you 2 PM's. Hope you found them. Imagine you have been so busy....understandable. J

msdirector

11-15-2006, 04:09 PM

Arlene, Please forget I said anything. I should have kept out of it. Was just commenting on the posting questions, but it was too obscure.

PS:Arlene, left you 2 PM's. Hope you found them. Imagine you have been so busy....understandable. J

No problem, Janine. You had valid points as far as how Magdalene can approach the forum. I just wasn't sure which research you were refering to - forum, Hamlet or "rutter" - that's quite a variety and I've managed to comment on all of them :lol:

And yes, I did see your PM's. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you on them yet. I still haven't gotten a chance to look through my CD's to see what I have. You're right - it has been a really busy time for me... but I will get back to you shortly...

Janine

11-15-2006, 04:26 PM

Arlene, don't rush. I am busy, too, but sure you must be busier with two concentrations right now. Hey, this forum is addictive, also! I do love it though! Have to go do things in the real world now. Will read your post on the Lawrence word first.

PS: no wonder Magdaline is confused - the post is Ghost and we hopped all around - now to Lawrence. Yes, M, this is still "Ghost in Hamlet" thread!

Now I see what's going on. Arlene, we must be posting the same time. I missed your other posts. Now I have read all of them - the word definition - great - thanks! .....
and the other post to M about the ghost. I have something to add to M. I agree with Arlene and wondered how you came up with the thought that the other people in the play were all mad? I don't think that Hamlet is mad at all, I never did. Distressed, maybe, but never mad.

Virgil

11-15-2006, 07:56 PM

I will start a thread on Horatio.

Go Here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=282099#post282099

Janine

11-18-2006, 10:47 PM

If anyone pops over from "Hamlet's Father" - the discussion can continue on the "Ghost". It sort of came to a standstill a week ago but there are some good points on this thread to read. We started a new thread - "Horatio", if anyone is interested in that. The debate there rages on!

Hamletta

02-18-2007, 05:27 PM

Why couldn't Gertrude, the queen, see the ghost? The guards, Horatio and Hamlet saw it. This is puzzling me.
Is it love for King Hamlet that allows the guards, Horatio, and Hamlet to see the ghost?

This is an outdated topic, but I want to see if anyone agrees or has some insight. I'm not a literary folk by any means, and my feelings get hurt easily. Please use care when replying. ;)

My quandry is exactly as stated in the quote above...I'm trying to figure out why only the select characters were chosen to see the ghost of King Hamlet. I read A LOT of the other posts and they were deep!! So deep that my professor would look at me cross-ways and ask me, "Who are you and what did you do with my student?"

P.S. I realize that Hamlet is a revenge tragedy and that it's not about love, but I'm searching for meaning why Ghost is only shown to the select few.

Friederike

02-27-2007, 04:52 PM

This note is for Jamesian: Where is your Thoreau quote from? Your help would prevent me from much time devoted to its source. Thanks so much!!:)

Wallflower01

04-18-2007, 10:34 AM

Is it love for King Hamlet that allows the guards, Horatio, and Hamlet to see the ghost?

This is an outdated topic, but I want to see if anyone agrees or has some insight. I'm not a literary folk by any means, and my feelings get hurt easily. Please use care when replying. ;)

My quandry is exactly as stated in the quote above...I'm trying to figure out why only the select characters were chosen to see the ghost of King Hamlet. I read A LOT of the other posts and they were deep!! So deep that my professor would look at me cross-ways and ask me, "Who are you and what did you do with my student?"

P.S. I realize that Hamlet is a revenge tragedy and that it's not about love, but I'm searching for meaning why Ghost is only shown to the select few.

I don't claim to know much about Hamlet, but we have been disscussing it in my English class, and I believe that, the ghost is simply in Hamlet's mind and that he is insane. My main reasons for this assumptioin is because the Ghost is never actually truly seen by anyone besides Hamlet. Even Horatio, Marcellus, and Barardo, never actually get a clear view of the ghost, they see what they believe to be a ghost, but that could just be a trick of the night. Hamlet is the only one who ever actually carries on a conversation with the Ghost.

Zirkle2007

04-18-2007, 06:47 PM

I don't claim to know much about Hamlet, but we have been disscussing it in my English class, and I believe that, the ghost is simply in Hamlet's mind and that he is insane. My main reasons for this assumptioin is because the Ghost is never actually truly seen by anyone besides Hamlet. Even Horatio, Marcellus, and Barardo, never actually get a clear view of the ghost, they see what they believe to be a ghost, but that could just be a trick of the night. Hamlet is the only one who ever actually carries on a conversation with the Ghost.

Not to be mean, but didn't the group of guards see the ghost AND attempt to converse with it in the beginning of the play?

I believe the ghost was 'real' in the context of the play. Maybe it chose not to reveal itself to anyone after it got its plan across to Hamlet.

srhoton

04-18-2007, 07:37 PM

I agree with Zirlke2007. The ghosts purpose was to seek revenge and to let the truth be know about his death. I do not think that the ghost of formed from Hamlets maddness due to the fact that other people saw it and did attempt to converse with it. The question that I have is why would the ghost show itself to Horatio, Marcellus, and Barardo and not to the queen or even Claudius to prove that he was murdered?

zmichael47348

04-18-2007, 08:46 PM

Let me preface this with my belief that the ghost is indeed real and if it were simply a fragment of Hamlet's imagination, important characters such as Horatio would not have been able to see it.

The question that I have is why would the ghost show itself to Horatio, Marcellus, and Barardo and not to the queen or even Claudius to prove that he was murdered?

The way I see it is there would be no advantage to the ghost if it showed itself to King Claudius. In my opinion, the only thing that could come out of the ghost showing itself to King Cladius is making the feeling of guilt larger for him. Cladius would NEVER tell anybody if he did see the ghost, so it really wouldn't help the situation at all.

I personally feel that the ghost did TRY to show itself to Queen Gertrude, but she is already feeling so guilty for what she has done that she ignores the vision of the ghost because it only makes her feel worse. If she did see the ghost and she admitted it, Hamlet probably would have killed King Cladius much sooner.

I guess what I am getting at is that Shakespeare chose who saw the ghost EXTREMELY well. In the play, Horatio is Hamlet's best friend and if he sees the ghost, the reader expects Horatio to tell Hamlet about it. The reader also expects Hamlet to listen to the ghost. Shakespeare knew who it would make most sense to make the ghost visible to. In my opinion, he did a great job.

Zirkle2007

04-18-2007, 10:15 PM

Let me preface this with my belief that the ghost is indeed real and if it were simply a fragment of Hamlet's imagination, important characters such as Horatio would not have been able to see it.

The way I see it is there would be no advantage to the ghost if it showed itself to King Claudius. In my opinion, the only thing that could come out of the ghost showing itself to King Cladius is making the feeling of guilt larger for him. Cladius would NEVER tell anybody if he did see the ghost, so it really wouldn't help the situation at all.

I personally feel that the ghost did TRY to show itself to Queen Gertrude, but she is already feeling so guilty for what she has done that she ignores the vision of the ghost because it only makes her feel worse. If she did see the ghost and she admitted it, Hamlet probably would have killed King Cladius much sooner.

I guess what I am getting at is that Shakespeare chose who saw the ghost EXTREMELY well. In the play, Horatio is Hamlet's best friend and if he sees the ghost, the reader expects Horatio to tell Hamlet about it. The reader also expects Hamlet to listen to the ghost. Shakespeare knew who it would make most sense to make the ghost visible to. In my opinion, he did a great job.

I agree. Shakespeare allowed only certain characters to see the ghost for certain reasons.

Now this next statement isn't intended to throw religion into this, but from my experience only certain people in real life have the ability to see demons and angles. Could Shakespeare be applying this to his play? I don't know to much about his religous life, so maybe a more studied mind could help me out...

Wallflower01

04-19-2007, 09:14 PM

Not to be mean, but didn't the group of guards see the ghost AND attempt to converse with it in the beginning of the play?

I believe the ghost was 'real' in the context of the play. Maybe it chose not to reveal itself to anyone after it got its plan across to Hamlet.

While this is true, they never actually were able to converse with it (meaning the ghost). It is my view that it is simple their minds playing tricks on them. There seems to be rumors of foul play surrounding the old King Hamlet's death, the guards are on night duty, spreading "rumors" and tell ghost stories to one another. Also doesn't one of the guards comment to the other, about the uneventfull night they have been having and shortly after that the ghost mysteriously appears?? It seems to me that this is more of a psychological issue then an undead one. They have been talking about ghosts, and the dead King, the night is boring, so unconciously they create a ghost. A ghost, in which, no one besides Hamlet is able to converse with, and Hamlet after conversing with ghost goes mad. The eyes can play cruel tricks on the mind. How many of us after hearing so terrifing ghost story at camp, could have sworn we saw the ghost coming after us as we make our way back to the cabins? Do a see a 'ghost' because it actually exist or is it seen because a 'ghost' is on our minds, and believe that a 'ghost' should be there? I personally believe the same thing happened to the guards at the beginning of Hamlet. It was night, everything is dark, and pour light. Their eyes just showed them what they believed should be there.
This is just my personal opinion, please fill free to disagree, but please do it nicely, and don't all attack me at once.

Rinas_Jaded

04-20-2007, 06:28 AM

I actually developed a theory (not a very well-tested one, really) that maybe Horatio, Bernardo, and Francisco were all people of Hamlet's imagination. I cannot remember an instance in which any of these characters speak to any others (but I haven't actually looked through the text since I thought of this; it is possible that the final scene could invalidate this). Thus, Hamlet is perhaps convinced that something is "rotten in the state of Denmark", and his imaginary companions' accounts justify this for him, so he goes and busts a cap or two. Were this the case, Gertrude obviously would not see the ghost. I really kind of doubt all this, but it could be something similar.

I think that is an interesting theory. I do believe only Horatio speaks to other people in the play though.

While this is true, they never actually were able to converse with it (meaning the ghost). It is my view that it is simple their minds playing tricks on them. There seems to be rumors of foul play surrounding the old King Hamlet's death, the guards are on night duty, spreading "rumors" and tell ghost stories to one another. Also doesn't one of the guards comment to the other, about the uneventfull night they have been having and shortly after that the ghost mysteriously appears?? It seems to me that this is more of a psychological issue then an undead one. They have been talking about ghosts, and the dead King, the night is boring, so unconciously they create a ghost. A ghost, in which, no one besides Hamlet is able to converse with, and Hamlet after conversing with ghost goes mad. The eyes can play cruel tricks on the mind. How many of us after hearing so terrifing ghost story at camp, could have sworn we saw the ghost coming after us as we make our way back to the cabins? Do a see a 'ghost' because it actually exist or is it seen because a 'ghost' is on our minds, and believe that a 'ghost' should be there? I personally believe the same thing happened to the guards at the beginning of Hamlet. It was night, everything is dark, and pour light. Their eyes just showed them what they believed should be there.
This is just my personal opinion, please fill free to disagree, but please do it nicely, and don't all attack me at once.

You mean that it's similar to the things you see as a child. When you get scared and see a monster under your bed. You call you parents to help you. In the scence of the guards they called Horatio they just wanted him to get rid of the monster right? Otherwise there is no other mention of the guards in the play or at least they don't have parts after that.

This is because the ghost can choose who does see it and who does not, (during the night when it is doom'd to walk, that is). All of its appearances are purposeful. It is crucial not only to see its speeches, but also to mark the circumstances of its appearances in order to determine these purposes.

- In the first scene, the ghost's appearance becomes progressively real. As the guards, we want to understand what it is, and why it is. The most significant in this scene is its reappearance when Horatio, to some extent, accurately divines the reasons for its previous appearances:

"And even the like precurse of fierce events,
As harbingers preceding still the fates
And prologue to the omen coming on,
Have heaven and earth together demonstrated
Unto our climatures and countrymen."

This indicates to us (the audience) and himself that there might be some wisdom in Horatio's reasoning.
Therefore and moreover, the ghost's appearance was to alarm the guards in hope to meet Hamlet, who is certain to hear of it through them, and rightly, as Horatio promptly says:

"Let us impart what we have seen to-night
Unto young Hamlet. For upon my life,
This spirit dumb to us will speak to him"
Notice that, though the guards can also see the ghost, it only ever talks to Hamlet in the entire play. The ghost is not seen again (or at least does not feature again) after Hamlet has talked to it (until Act III), thus, perhaps, indicates that it no longer needs the guards to see it and that its initial appearances are deliberate.

- The reason why Gertrude cannot see the ghost is, again, because it does not wish her to. The purpose of this appearance is to scold at Hamlet for forgetting his given tasks: "This visitation is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose." One scold is, as Hamlet rightly says, it comes to its "tardy son to chide, that laps'd in time and passion, lets go by th' important acting of [its] dread command". The other scold, much more significant to your question, is because Hamlet was disobeying the ghost's command to leave his mother to the punishments of heaven by telling her the truth and asking her to repent.
In the first conversation with Hamlet, the ghost makes clear its disgust at the act of the "seeming-virtuous Queen":

"But virtue, as it never will be moved,
Though lewdness court it in a shape of Heaven,
So lust, though to a radiant angel link'd,
Will sate itself in a celestial bed,
And prey on garbage."

And, though her offence may not amount to the urgent punishment that the ghost asks Hamlet to give to Claudius, the anguished spirit of the King does not want to forgive her. If she was not confronted and advised of the terrible truth, she will not have the chance to repent and, thus, will have to face the consequences enforced by heaven (which she does deserve for her unknowing act of lust alone)(A similar reasoning is used when Hamlet decides not to kill Claudius whilst he is confessing.):

"Taint not thy mind; nor let thy soul contrive
Against thy mother aught; leave her to heaven,
And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge,
To prick and sting her."

So when Hamlet was very close to making Gertrude realise the unvirtuous nature of her new marriage and, even to persuading her that her new husband is a murderer, the ghost interferes simply to stop this from happening. If it lets Gertrude see it, the pale spirit of her murdered King, this would only further convince her that Hamlet is telling her the truth, and further amount to her remorse and penitence, which would be completely against its cause. But by not letting Gertrude see it, yet conversing with Hamlet at the same time, it, perhaps wittingly, aids Hamlet on his task of faking insanity. Therefore, this invisibility is purposeful. And, therefore, who does see the ghost and who does not is intentional on the part of the ghost.

Perhaps the ghost must be cunning in this, for, though Hamlet appears to grief and obey his father's wishes whole-heartedly, his just and extraordinary sense of morality understands the immorals of these wishes and contemplates them with even more devotion.
If I read this sooner I can honestly say I would be compleaty in awe. It is quite insightful.

htownsend

04-20-2007, 08:44 AM

HomeSkillet

04-20-2007, 09:47 PM

Ah, a very interesting comment that htownsend made. I think that Gertrude is a fairly under-estimated character in the play. I mean who else could get over a husbands death, marry his brother, find her son to be perhaps mad, and then drink poison and die. . . ? Wouldn't it make a huge twist in the play if Shakespeare did somehow show the audience that Gertrude secretly saw the ghost, but didn't want to jeopardize things to come? (A conspiracy theory)
-In my opinion much like the others, I believe that the ghost only appeared to those that needed to see him most. If this is not the case though, Gertrude did a great job fooling me. ;)

drlex

04-23-2007, 11:01 AM

I wonder, if, Gertrude COULD see the Ghost, but "chose" not to. For one, if she admitted to seeing it, then Hamlet wouldn't be crazy, like her husband says. She could have seen something, but absolutly refused to acknowledge it.
But, if this theory fails then I would have to agree with the already stated idea that the Ghost only showed himself to the people he wanted to.

I think that htownsend did a very good job of answering this question. I think that this view is very interesting and raises somewhat of a question. Did Gertrude see the ghost and is refusing to admit that she has? I think that if Gertrude would have seen the ghost than the story of Hamlet wouldn't exist or it would be totally different. If she did see it would it have caused the King to try to kill her too? Or would he have banished her? This is a very interesting question and there are to many avenues that this could have taken. I would have to look at Hamlet again to give more info.

Redzeppelin

04-24-2007, 11:11 PM

I think Gertrude lacks the duplicity and the intellect to actually grasp in such an emotional moment what a recognition of the ghost would mean. I have tremendous difficulty with interpretations that do not point to some textual clue unless the interpretation is reasonable in terms of character and the themes of the play. Gertrude is largely blind and ignorant of the effects of her behavior on her son; she does admit in the play that her overhasty marriage is likely at the root of Hamlet's behavior, but she does not seem to ponder the issue beyond that. I don't think she's got the mental machinery to play that kind of manipulative game with her son.

Why the ghost won't appear to Gertrude is a mystery; one might have to consider Elizabethan demonology to understand the problem. According to Elizabethan demonology, a ghost might be any one of a number of things:

1. a hallucination
2. a spirit returned from purgatory to perform a deed left undone in life
3. a portent (omen, warning)
4. a spirit returned from grave/purgatory by Divine permission
5. a devil disguised as a dead person

Since the ghost speaks truly, we know 5 is out (but it and 4 are what cause much of Hamlet's relentless reflections because he does risk his soul in executing judgment that may not be divinely ordained). 1 is ruled out because Horatio et al see him - and perhaps that is why they must see him: to dismiss the idea that Hamlet is truly mad. The play deals very much with verification - whether by direct or indirect means. Perhaps having the ghost appear to others early on was something Shakespeare (or Edward de Vere :) ) did by necessity in order to keep his character from losing credibility; after all, Hamlet must execute Divine Justice as a tragic hero; he cannot serve the devil and reset society as the tragic hero's death must. The ghost must be real in order for Hamlet's verification via the "Mousetrap" to mean anything - otherwise we have a trap hatched in Hamlet's brain being used to verify a "truth" originally hatched (via hallucination - the mind lying to itself) in Hamlet's brain. A sort of mental begging-the-question.

If Hamlet is the tool of divine justice, then perhaps it can be argued that the ghost is prohibited by God from appearing to the guilty parties. Why? Good question.