Suicide in Hamlet [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

Darren19

01-12-2007, 09:22 AM

Act 1, Scene 2
Suicide 1: Wallowing in gloom, Hamlet wishes that his living flesh would melt into nothingness. Life is flat and weary for the melancholy Prince. If God had not ruled suicide a mortal sin, Hamlet would readily escape the uselessness of the world through self-slaughter.
Act 1, Scene 5
Suicide 2: Charged with avenging his father's murder, Hamlet curses his luck and laments that he was ever born. Earlier, the suicidal prince wished for death. Now he wishes he had never seen life.
Act 2, Scene 2
Suicide 3: Hamlet's melancholy deepens and his suicidal self-hatred grows. The withdrawn Prince no longer feels a desire to be amongst men or women. All is worthless, dead dust to him. Hamlet condemns himself for being a rogue and a pigeon-livered coward. He hates his inactivity and his life.
Act 3, Scene 3
Suicide 4: Hamlet wonders whether it is better to live with misery or die with uncertainty. Life is nothing but suffering and enduring fortune's unfair blows.

Suicide is the ultimate defense against life's troubles. Suicide offers peaceful sleep; but what dreams may interrupt that sleep? Hamlet is afraid of the uncertain afterlife and those unknown nightmares that may be in store. Death offers peace, but the dreaded unknown makes men too cowardly to commit suicide.
Act 4, Scene 7
Suicide 5: Ophelia has drowned in a suspected suicide. Driven mad by Polonius' murder and Hamlet's betrayal, Ophelia fell from a willow tree into the river. Without struggle, the singing maiden surrendered to the water and drowned.
Act 5, Scene 1
Suicide 6: Because suicide is a mortal sin, the gravediggers wonder whether Ophelia will receive a Christian burial. Ophelia's funeral procession is short and modest. The harsh priest says that her death was suspicious. Without her royal ties, Ophelia would have been buried in unsanctified ground.
Act 5, Scene 2
Suicide 7: The culminating suicide is the death of the entire royal clan by its own familial corruption. During the royal massacre, Laertes is slashed with his own poisoned sword. Claudius is killed by his own treacherous plan. Gertrude willfully seizes the chalice that poisons her, and Hamlet dies because his delayed quest for vengeance has led to this final massacre. Denmark has crumbled because the royal family has killed itself through betrayal and vice.

This is what i know

Lioness_Heart

01-14-2007, 08:06 AM

It seems to me that you've got it all pretty much covered. I can't think of any more places where suicide is directly mentioned. Except for possibly the idea of heaven/hell in relation to death etc... possibly the bit where Claudius is praying?... although that's not directly related to suicide really...
Also, there is a slight ambiguity as to whether Ophelia's death relaly was suicide...

Redzeppelin

01-14-2007, 01:17 PM

Geimle Burzeen

01-18-2007, 12:43 PM

Redzeppelin

01-19-2007, 12:48 AM

Right - one of the great mysteries of the play is the nature of Ophelia's death. We are given contradictory reports - one from Getrude, another from the clergy. Who's right? The "maimed rights" suggest that the clergy had their way (with some mitigation from Claudius, apparently a posthumous favor for Polonious and the distraught Laertes). Why would Shakespeare do this? What is gained or lost by having Ophelia's death under questionable circumstances? Was Getrude lying?

Either way, I don't think Hamlet desired suicide.

PolarTucan

04-18-2007, 09:49 PM

I think that when Hamlet jumps into Ophelia’s grave it foreshadows his death. The same is true for Ophelia’s brother.... And he jumped in on his own free will to prove his love to her, so was he condoning his own death with that act? Maybe that’s reading into it too much… but its an idea.
-Amelia

Amleth

04-19-2007, 01:59 AM

Right - one of the great mysteries of the play is the nature of Ophelia's death. We are given contradictory reports - one from Getrude, another from the clergy. Who's right? ...

Gertrude's right, of course, and it isn't that big a mystery. Gertrude reports the fact of how Ophelia died. That's why Gertrude's speech is in the play, to inform the audience of the fact. The coroner agrees, as we see later.

Then we see the sexton Clown only repeating something he's heard. He doesn't really know anything about it. The point of what the sexton Clown says, is how rumor spreads among people who don't really know anything.

The sexton Clown tells contrived jokes with the malicious intent to make his friend look foolish, he calls his friend a jackass, and he demands liquor, while he's supposed to be working. And people are supposed to trust what he says? It's surprising anybody ever took what he said seriously. The sexton is a blowhard Clown character, who's spreading malicious gossip.

People should notice that "clown" is exactly what the sexton is called in the original printing of Hamlet, in Shakespeare's own time. He's not a character to take seriously.

Rinas_Jaded

04-20-2007, 06:23 AM

Rinas_Jaded

04-20-2007, 06:25 AM

Gertrude's right, of course, and it isn't that big a mystery. Gertrude reports the fact of how Ophelia died. That's why Gertrude's speech is in the play, to inform the audience of the fact. The coroner agrees, as we see later.

Then we see the sexton Clown only repeating something he's heard. He doesn't really know anything about it. The point of what the sexton Clown says, is how rumor spreads among people who don't really know anything.

The sexton Clown tells contrived jokes with the malicious intent to make his friend look foolish, he calls his friend a jackass, and he demands liquor, while he's supposed to be working. And people are supposed to trust what he says? It's surprising anybody ever took what he said seriously. The sexton is a blowhard Clown character, who's spreading malicious gossip.

People should notice that "clown" is exactly what the sexton is called in the original printing of Hamlet, in Shakespeare's own time. He's not a character to take seriously.

I didn't know that. Always good to be informed. Thank-you for the information.

Redzeppelin

04-24-2007, 11:25 PM

Gertrude's right, of course, and it isn't that big a mystery. Gertrude reports the fact of how Ophelia died. That's why Gertrude's speech is in the play, to inform the audience of the fact. The coroner agrees, as we see later.

I beg to differ, sir. Gertrude's story is at odds with the priest's insistence that the circumstances of Opelia's death were in question and that the "maimed rites" she was receiving were already stretching the bounds of what the church permitted. The grave diggers are repeating "what they've heard" but the priest confirms this - and the implication is that Claudius may well have put pressure on the clergy to give Polonious' daughter a decent burial.

Then we see the sexton Clown only repeating something he's heard. He doesn't really know anything about it. The point of what the sexton Clown says, is how rumor spreads among people who don't really know anything.

There is no reason for Shakespeare to have the grave diggers expound upon this point for that reason. Shakespeare doen't have conversations that reinforce later statements in order to illustrate an unrelated topic; the play has nothing to do with how rumors spread; it has a lot to do with appearances and what "seems" to be true about people. That Ophelia was mad due largely to her father's death and Hamlet's utter rejection of her lends credibility to the idea that she may indeed have (unwittingly) killed herself - which may explain the "maimed rites."

The sexton Clown tells contrived jokes with the malicious intent to make his friend look foolish, he calls his friend a jackass, and he demands liquor, while he's supposed to be working. And people are supposed to trust what he says? It's surprising anybody ever took what he said seriously. The sexton is a blowhard Clown character, who's spreading malicious gossip.

You're psycholanalyzing literary characters as if they're real people; careful: fiction obeys certain rules that reality does not. You have no evidence that the sexton is spreading untruths; gossip, perhaps, but give some evidence that his gossip is a lie.

People should notice that "clown" is exactly what the sexton is called in the original printing of Hamlet, in Shakespeare's own time. He's not a character to take seriously.

"Clown" in Elizabethan parlance means "rustic." Not, as you seem to imply, "buffoon."

Jim58

04-26-2007, 09:57 AM

Suicide is only tangential in the play touched on at various points to further other motifs or themes. It's not a character issue for Hamlet nor is it thematic to the play.

At the end of the play, Horatio makes a statement about being an antique roman and dying alongside Hamlet. This serves as a prompt for Hamlet's final wish that Horatio "draw thy breath in pain to tell [his] story." Which, as Prince Fortinbras closes the play, he is keen to hear and see the performance.

Ophelia's death as doubtful serves as a final tragedy on Shakespeare's most tragical character. It also continues a motif of casting catholicism in an extremely ill light, highlighting its rigidity and corruption.

Hamlet references suicide in his first and fourth soliloquies. The first time he is speaking symbolically of the depths of his dispair. The auxesis in the first soliloquy has the allusion to Richard II, where Richard dispairs at the loss of the crown.

In the 3.1 soliloquy, Hamlet is in the abstract contrasting the ease of death with its difficulty.

Neither of these two references can be considered suicidal ideation on the part of Hamlet.

Redzeppelin

04-27-2007, 12:21 AM

Jim58

04-27-2007, 11:26 AM

Hamlet's reference in his first soliloquy does seem to suggest suicide

Taking Hamlet's words on their face, yes, he speaks of suicide. But these are words of an immature mind that convey more a desperation and hopelessness than intent or ideation. Claudius has been fairly brutal with Hamlet in the first half of 1.2 and Gertrude isn't giving Hamlet much sympathy. Obviously, Claudius' aim is to dispel any notion that Hamlet should have succeeded to the throne. Claudius, has usurped the crown from his brother and from Hamlet's perspective, he has usurped it from him. There is a parallel here and thus the allusion to the circumstance of Shakespeare's Richard II, the boy king, losing his crown to his cousin Henry Bolingbroke. This from Richard in his dispair after being relieved of his crown:

NORTHUMBERLAND
My lord,--
RICHARD II
No lord of thine, thou haught insulting man,
Nor no man's lord! I have no name, no title-
No, not that name was given me at the font-
But 'tis usurp'd. Alack the heavy day,
That I have worn so many winters out
And know not now what name to call myself.
O that I were a mockery king of snow,
Standing before the sun of Bolingbroke,
To melt myself away in water-drops!
4.1.253

And then in the next scene at 5.1.1 Richards's wife
meets him as he is conveyed to the Tower:

QUEEN
This way the king will come. This is the way
To Julius Caesar's ill-erected tower,
To whose flint bosom my condemned lord
Is doom'd a prisoner by proud Bolingbroke.
Here let us rest, if this rebellious earth
Have any resting for her true king's queen.
(Enter Richard II and Guard)
But soft, but see, or rather do not see
My fair rose wither. Yet look up, behold,
That you in pity may dissolve to dew,
And wash him fresh again with true-love tears.
(emphasis added)

Hamlet's first soliloquy begins in youthful hyperbole (more precisely auxesis) that is an abstract notion of death, the reality to which Shakespeare slowly develops in Hamlet. By the end of the play how does Hamlet see death? As dew drops? No, we all resolve to dust. The greats like Julius Caesar and Alexander and the small like Yorick, the king's jester. All that's left is their memory.

Redzeppelin

04-27-2007, 10:45 PM

Taking Hamlet's words on their face, yes, he speaks of suicide. But these are words of an immature mind that convey more a desperation and hopelessness than intent or ideation.

I'm sorry - to call Hamlet's mind "immature" is beyond what I can accept. The play reveals in every word of Hamlet a virtuoso intellect of devastating insight, irony and perception. He's emotional, but immature? I don't buy that. There's not a character in the play whom he does not tie up with words and then have his way with. No character in the Shakespeare canon can stand toe-to-toe with Hamlet in terms of intellect.

I'm aware of the Richard II similarity - its a nice tie in.

Jim58

04-29-2007, 08:16 AM

I'm sorry - to call Hamlet's mind "immature" is beyond what I can accept. The play reveals in every word of Hamlet a virtuoso intellect of devastating insight, irony and perception. He's emotional, but immature? I don't buy that. There's not a character in the play whom he does not tie up with words and then have his way with. No character in the Shakespeare canon can stand toe-to-toe with Hamlet in terms of intellect.

Let's take a look at Hamlet from a different perspective for a moment. He is a teenager, 16 17 years old. His wit is what I would expect from educated nobility but its use is cocky, disrespectful and juvenile. Our initial impression of Hamlet in 1.2 is not mature behavior. Setting aside for a moment Claudius' view of Hamlet as immature, look at Hamlet's response when Claudius and Gertrude ask Hamlet to stay at Elsinore. "I shall in all my best obey you, madam." That's a childish statement. Hamlet says he will listen to his mother just to slight Claudius even though they both say the same thing.

His appearance, dressed in black, is selfish. Even though the day is one of happiness for mom and uncle, Hamlet isn't going to respect the occasion. Is he showing a duty to his father's memory or is he just being difficult? I think he is just trying to creat a scene. This is further confirmed as the play advances because Hamlet's diligence to his father's memory wains in spite of a heightened duty occasioned by his knowledge of the murder.

Two things in his first soliloquy that follows shows immaturity. Hamlet has no sense of proportion. As is typical with teenagers he sees events as personal to him and verging on the fatal. "Oh my god, I could just die, my life, my world is falling apart." He is particularly poetic (and unrealistic) in his view of death. Melting, thawing and resolving into dew. There is purity in the imagery and the sentiment. By the end of the play Hamlet sees death more realistically attended as it is with dirt and worms.

Second, Hamlet's statement about the frailty of women drawn as it is from one observation, his mother, is faulty inductive reasoning. It draws broad conclusions from very narrow observation. To him the conclusion makes sense. He uses this same faulty reasoning to condemn himself and Ophelia to a life like his mother and father in the nunnery scene.

Hamlet has not a kind word for Polonius through the whole play. He takes the good old man's "senility" as a license to be openly rude.

Hamlet's youthful impetuousness has him chase after the ghost and stab Polonius. It also has his mouth run ahead of his head as when the Ghost tells him of the circumstance of his death or when he is so caught up with celebrating his own cleverness in catching the conscience of the King, he celebrates with the players rather than following Claudius and finish him off.

I think Hamlet's real dynamic is his transition from the fantasies of youth to the realities and burdens of adulthood. Gertrude is a queen and mother who is also a sexual being. These are things that are a part of growing up. That's how I see Hamlet.

Redzeppelin

04-29-2007, 04:02 PM

Let's take a look at Hamlet from a different perspective for a moment. He is a teenager, 16 17 years old. His wit is what I would expect from educated nobility but its use is cocky, disrespectful and juvenile. Our initial impression of Hamlet in 1.2 is not mature behavior. Setting aside for a moment Claudius' view of Hamlet as immature, look at Hamlet's response when Claudius and Gertrude ask Hamlet to stay at Elsinore. "I shall in all my best obey you, madam." That's a childish statement. Hamlet says he will listen to his mother just to slight Claudius even though they both say the same thing.

No - this is flat-out wrong. First, if you wanted textual evidence, the conversation with the grave-diggers in 5.1 would put Hamlet at about 30 years old.

Next - there is nothing juvenile about Hamlet's responses to his mother and Claudius; not only have they disrespected the dead by marrying within two months of Hamlet Sr.'s death, but they are committing incest as per medieval canon law. He has a right to be extremely angry. His jab at Claudius is less a childish statement than a clear message that his kingship holds no authority over Hamlet (who later speaks of Claudius' essential "usurping" of the throne). It's your interpretation that the comment is childish. You seem to forget that Claudius spent 20 lines telling Hamlet how unfit he is:

KING CLAUDIUS
'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,
To give these mourning duties to your father:
But, you must know, your father lost a father;
That father lost, lost his, and the survivor bound
In filial obligation for some term
To do obsequious sorrow: but to persever
In obstinate condolement is a course
Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief;
It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,
A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,
An understanding simple and unschool'd:
For what we know must be and is as common
As any the most vulgar thing to sense,
Why should we in our peevish opposition
Take it to heart? Fie! 'tis a fault to heaven,
A fault against the dead, a fault to nature,
To reason most absurd: whose common theme
Is death of fathers, and who still hath cried,
From the first corse till he that died to-day,
'This must be so.'

I'd be angry too if told this by a man committing incest with my mother who'd taken a position as ruler that was rightfully mine.

His appearance, dressed in black, is selfish. Even though the day is one of happiness for mom and uncle, Hamlet isn't going to respect the occasion. Is he showing a duty to his father's memory or is he just being difficult? I think he is just trying to creat a scene. This is further confirmed as the play advances because Hamlet's diligence to his father's memory wains in spite of a heightened duty occasioned by his knowledge of the murder.

His dressing in black may very well be a visual rebuke to his mother, who should have mourned far longer for her dead husband than two months. You speak as if selfishness is some sort of age indicator. It's not. Look at the behavior of most of the people in the play.

Two things in his first soliloquy that follows shows immaturity. Hamlet has no sense of proportion. As is typical with teenagers he sees events as personal to him and verging on the fatal. "Oh my god, I could just die, my life, my world is falling apart." He is particularly poetic (and unrealistic) in his view of death. Melting, thawing and resolving into dew. There is purity in the imagery and the sentiment. By the end of the play Hamlet sees death more realistically attended as it is with dirt and worms.

None of this lends weight to the idea that he's immature. He's lost his father and his mother and his uncle are married in violation of canon law. You act as if he's supposed to just intellectualize away some significant pains.

Second, Hamlet's statement about the frailty of women drawn as it is from one observation, his mother, is faulty inductive reasoning. It draws broad conclusions from very narrow observation. To him the conclusion makes sense. He uses this same faulty reasoning to condemn himself and Ophelia to a life like his mother and father in the nunnery scene.

No - he uses his mother as the primary example of his claim. Hamlet's claims are made from his broad understanding of life and human nature.

Hamlet has not a kind word for Polonius through the whole play. He takes the good old man's "senility" as a license to be openly rude.

Polonius is not senile; Polonius is a spy, a meddler, a manipulator and a gadfly. Remember, as well, that Hamlet was faking insanity for much of the play during his interactions with Polonius. As adivsor to Claudius (and assumably Hamlet Sr. before), it's reasonable to assume that Hamlet resented Polonius' support of the incestuous marriage and saw him as a threat (since anything said to Polonius went straight to Claudius).

Hamlet's youthful impetuousness has him chase after the ghost and stab Polonius. It also has his mouth run ahead of his head as when the Ghost tells him of the circumstance of his death or when he is so caught up with celebrating his own cleverness in catching the conscience of the King, he celebrates with the players rather than following Claudius and finish him off.

One can be impetuous and be a mature adult. You seem to ignore the high emotional content of these scenes and what they would mean to any young man. None of the things you're using to argue your point are unequivocally the behaviors of an immature youth; adults do these things too.

I think Hamlet's real dynamic is his transition from the fantasies of youth to the realities and burdens of adulthood. Gertrude is a queen and mother who is also a sexual being. These are things that are a part of growing up. That's how I see Hamlet.

Well, you're free to keep your interpretation, but I cannot agree with it. His dialogue reveals immense maturity, intelligence, complexity and understanding. Nobody in the play can keep up with him. He outsmarts all. That he gets emotional or distraught or acts impetuously is more a function of his tragic flaw than his youth.

Jim58

04-29-2007, 06:31 PM

I find your view too idealized but I hope it works out for you.

For now I'll just point out two errors. First your reliance on the gravedigger scene to establish Hamlet as a 30 year old isn't as textually grounded as you suggest.

In the graveyard scene (5.1) we are told that Hamlet was born, "that day that our last King Hamlet overcame Fortinbras." The problem is determining when that was. The Gravedigger ties three events together, his employment as a gravedigger, young Hamlet's birth and Fortinbras' defeat by King Hamlet. The Gravedigger then tells how long that has been.

Let's digress a bit about what the Gravedigger is going to tell us. The play as it is published today is edited from three basic texts that survived from Shakespeare's time, none of which are in his handwriting. There is the First Quarto published at about 1603, the Second Quarto published about 1604 and the Folio published in 1623. All versions of the play are based in some combination of these three texts.

Now to the Gravedigger. The Second Quarto has the Gravedigger say following (as it is printed): "I haue been Sexten heere man and boy thirty yeeres." The Folio text though recites the same passage as, "I haue bin sixeteene heere, man and Boy thirty yeares." This fairly clearly puts Hamlet's age at 16 plus. The first Quarto does not reference the passage. As you can see, today's editions of the play modernize the language abandoning those archaic spellings.

The only other time reference from the Gravedigger is the amount of time Yorick's skull has lain in the earth. The Folio oddly says, "Heres a Scull now: this Scul, has laine in the earth three & twenty years." The second Quarto says, "heer's a scull now hath lyen you i'th earth 23. yeeres." But the first Quarto is different relaying the skull's age in the ground as follow: "heres a scull hath bin here this dozen yeare,"

These 400+ years since Hamlet was first published has failed to clarify these points beyond speculation. If you want to say Hamlet is thirty in 5.1, I won't have much of a problem with that. There is no way he is thirty at the start of the play. Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras are not middle aged men.

Second, the "tragic flaw" analysis from Aristotle's Poetics really has no place in Shakespeare, see, http://www.jsu.edu/depart/english/gates/shtragcv.htm This idea really has its genesis in academics from A. C. Bradley's, Shakespearean Tragedy, http://www.clicknotes.com/bradley/ where Bradley created the idea of the "tragic trait" a character based concept. Aristotle's "tragic flaw" (which is a misnomer anyway) or hamartia is a plot element not a character element appearing as it does in the Poetics in the plot chapter not the character chapter.

The notion that Shakespeare would model plays on the musings of a 2,000 year old philosopher (not a playwrite) is insulting.

Jim58

04-30-2007, 12:32 AM

there is nothing juvenile about Hamlet's responses to his mother and Claudius; not only have they disrespected the dead by marrying within two months of Hamlet Sr.'s death, but they are committing incest as per medieval canon law. He has a right ...

This is a non sequitur. Whether Hamlet was justified in acting with immaturity doesn't change the nature of the conduct.

His jab at Claudius is less a childish statement than a clear message that his kingship holds no authority over Hamlet

You have no textual support for this. And yes, Claudius' asessment of Hamlet is consistent with my reading.

I'd be angry too ... Of course, whether Hamlet is justified in his feelings is beside the point. The question is his behavior. One difference between adults and juveniles is that adults recognize societal norms and acting appropriately. Hamlet's display simply gives Claudius' claim credibility.

His dressing in black may very well be a visual rebuke to his mother, who should have mourned far longer for her dead husband than two months. Perhaps she should have but you can't justify bad behavior with someone elses bad behavior.

he uses his mother as the primary example of his claim. Hamlet's claims are made from his broad understanding of life and human nature. Hamlet's conclusion, "Frailty thy name is woman" is a generality drawn from one specific example - Hamlet's mother. That is faulty inductive reasoning. There is no textual support and there is certainly no basis in reality that women as a gender are inclined to act like Gertrude. Quite the contrary.

Polonius is not senile; Polonius is a spy, a meddler, a manipulator and a gadfly. Remember, as well, that Hamlet was faking insanity for much of the play during his interactions with Polonius. As adivsor to Claudius (and assumably Hamlet Sr. before), it's reasonable to assume that Hamlet resented Polonius' support of the incestuous marriage and saw him as a threat (since anything said to Polonius went straight to Claudius).

I did put quotes around senility. Though Hamlet doesn't say it, he suggests as much and I think his assessment is valid. Polonius is a "foolish prating knave" with a "plentiful lack of wit." Polonius is also duplicitous and morally ambiguous. He is wrong in his assessment of Hamlet and his language can be comical. But again, this doesn't give Hamlet license to be rude.

One can be impetuous and be a mature adult. You seem to ignore the high emotional content of these scenes and what they would mean to any young man. None of the things you're using to argue your point are unequivocally the behaviors of an immature youth; adults do these things too. Your argument that Hamlet has, " immense maturity, intelligence, complexity and understanding" and yet frail to the " high emotional content of these scenes " is contradictory. I am merely reading the character consistent with the text.

Redzeppelin

05-02-2007, 03:22 PM

This is a non sequitur. Whether Hamlet was justified in acting with immaturity doesn't change the nature of the conduct.

Recheck your Latin - my comments do logically follow. First, there is not critical agreement that Hamlet's behavior is "immature"; second, even if we grant the behavior "immature" that does not in and of itself mean that the speaker is immature age-wise.

You have no textual support for this. And yes, Claudius' asessment of Hamlet is consistent with my reading.

It's an interpretive comment - like yours that Hamlet is some sort of angry and immature teenager. That's your interpretation. My comment is mine.

Of course, whether Hamlet is justified in his feelings is beside the point. The question is his behavior. One difference between adults and juveniles is that adults recognize societal norms and acting appropriately. Hamlet's display simply gives Claudius' claim credibility.

It is not beside the point; even the legal system makes allowances for "crimes of passion" (as opposed to "in cold blood"). Your argument wishes to ignore that people in the midst of powerful emotions do illogical, immature, rash, hasty, reactive things - essentially, you argue that Hamlet's failure to be a model of emotional stability or social appropriateness somehow denies him the age of adult? All of Shakespeare's tragic heroes act in a similar manner - Lear, Othello, Macbeth, Romeo - all demonstrate acts, behaviors, attitudes, responses and choices that do not always reflect wise, mature, logical choosing.

Perhaps she should have but you can't justify bad behavior with someone elses bad behavior.

There's nothing morally reprehensible or immature about wearing the clothes of mourning; if I recall correctly, in the medieval period women were required to mourn for one year before removing the black and taking a new husband. Hamlet's ironic nature would certainly see the value in his wearing black compared to her "lack of black."

Hamlet's conclusion, "Frailty thy name is woman" is a generality drawn from one specific example - Hamlet's mother. That is faulty inductive reasoning. There is no textual support and there is certainly no basis in reality that women as a gender are inclined to act like Gertrude. Quite the contrary.

As if people who are contemplating traumas in their life are supposed to exercise syllogistic/logical accuracy in their statements; your arguments suggest that you don't really want "human" characters - you seem to want those who obey certain "laws" of behavior and that violation of these "laws" suggests a problem with the character. Not always.

I did put quotes around senility. Though Hamlet doesn't say it, he suggests as much and I think his assessment is valid. Polonius is a "foolish prating knave" with a "plentiful lack of wit." Polonius is also duplicitous and morally ambiguous. He is wrong in his assessment of Hamlet and his language can be comical. But again, this doesn't give Hamlet license to be rude.

The world of Hamlet, according to the critic William Main, is a world "tapestries" behind which all the characters are hiding. Polonius' physical concealment behind the arras is a physical enactment of what he, Claudius and Hamlet are all engaged in during the drama. If one is to pretend insanity, politeness is contrary to the intended effect. I can't believe you're quibbling about "rudeness" on Hamlet's part when his father has been betrayed in multiple ways by both Claudius and Gertrude, as well as Polonius. Polonius - as councilor to Claudius - was more than likely Hamlet Sr.'s councilor - as such, his clear support of the marriage makes him an accomplice in Hamlet's view. He is justified in his hostility towards a man who is tyring to "probe" him in numerous ways.

Your argument that Hamlet has, " immense maturity, intelligence, complexity and understanding" and yet frail to the " high emotional content of these scenes " is contradictory. I am merely reading the character consistent with the text.

Intelligent, mature and complex people have emotions too - that's what makes them human. Nothing contradictory there. Your "consistent" reading is simply you deciding that a particular set of behaviors is ONLY enacted by a particular age group in society. That is fully incorrect.

In terms of the grave-diggers: you spent a lot of effort to argue a point that wasn't a cornerstone of my argument; I simply noted that speculation of age has to give place to the information the play explicity gives.

Next - I'm aware that Shakespeare doesn't follow Aristotle - I did not imply that he did; however, Shakespeare's plays reveal an awareness of Aristotle's discussion of the tragic flaw, and the tragic heroes do (in general) follow that model. Shakespeare's primary deviation from the classic dramatists was his abandonment of the "three unities."

Andrea2007

05-03-2007, 10:22 AM

I was just wondering about some of the instances in Hamlet where any character demonstrated suicide. I know some of the main parts, but i was just wondering if theirs some things that i missed.

There are many instances in Hamlet that demonstrate suicide. One of the most famous occurs in Act III Scene I Lines 57-91. It start, 'To be or not to be, that is the question.' What Hamlet is asking himself is, to live or not to live. Is it worth living if life is so terrible, or would it be better to just die. He suggests that death is like dreaming when you are asleep, you just don't wake up. In this scene, Hamlet makes death seem welcoming and better than living. We can see how depressed and unhappy Hamlet its from this speech, you understand what he is going through.
In act three scene three, King Claudius is upset after watching Hamlet's play, The Mousetrap. The play reveals that he killed his brother, King Hamlet. In this scene Claudius is praying about his sins. He is feeling guilty about what he has done. However this is not contemplating suicide. Claudius is too selfish to even think about harming himself. Continuing on to act four scene five, starting on line 171, we see Ophelia is going mad. She is deeply saddened and depressed. Hamlet, her lover, has gone crazy, killer her father, and told her that he doesn't love her any more. Ophelia goes around singing songs and passing out flowers. She is not mentall stable and it is obvious she could kill herself. At the end of the play, act five scene two, starting on line 347, Horatio wants to take his own life. He feels like he has failed Hamlet, not protecting him. He wants to drink the rest of the poison and die with Hamlet. Hamlet tells him not to, but to go and tell of his story. Horatio listens and lives.

Zirkle2007

05-03-2007, 10:55 AM

zmichael47348

05-03-2007, 10:57 AM

At the risk of contradicting the entire thesis of this thread, may I suggest that a wish for death may not necessarily mean that Hamlet desires to actively kill himself (which is the definition of "suicide"). Hamlet wants to be done with the pain of life - that is true, but I think he is more likely looking at life as tedious and difficult, and death as release from these things. But as to an actual desire to kill himself? I think many people in dire circumstances wish for the release of death, but if you offered them a chance to kill themselves they'd say "no - I don't want to instigate my death - I just wish I weren't here anymore, dealing with this pain."

But perhaps I'm just hair-splitting here).

I do agree with the fact that Hamlet does indeed want to be done with the pain of life. He is obviously sick and tired of the way it is treating him. I mean, let's face it, he lost a father, his mother married his father's brother, he learns that his father's brother killed his father, his girlfriend (if you can call her that) kills herself (or at least that is the way I took it), and eventually his mother drinks poison and dies. What more could go wrong? Honestly, who wouldn't want to just end life after all this happened?

I further agree with the part about Hamlet not really wanting to kill himself. Somebody who talks about suicide that much very much wants to end the pain of life, but given the opportunity, they probably wouldn't take it. In Act V, Scene 2, Hamlet says “Thou livest; report me and my cause aright/To the unsatisfied.” (5.2.346-347) Hamlet is asking Horatio to stay alive and tell his story to others. Look closely at the “To the unsatisfied” part. I think he is talking about people who are in similar situations. He wants Horatio to speak to them so they don't fall into the same trap that Hamlet did. The trap being revenge, suicide, and death. A few lines later, Hamlet says “If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart,/Absent thee from felicity awhile...” (5.2.353-354) He is telling Horatio that if he really cared about him, he would not kill himself and tell everybody his story. Both of these instances show that Hamlet is not happy that he is dying, but is glad that the pain of life is over. This just backs up that Hamlet wants to end the pain of life, but killing himself or being murdered doesn't seem like such a great thing when it actually happens.

The suicide theme is VERY present in this play. I think it is important, however, for people to realize that most of this is simply talk by one or two characters and the thought of actually carrying out their own suicide doesn't seem like such a great idea when they get closer to actually doing it. I think Hamlet is too wishy-washy to actually kill himself. He can't make up his mind whether it would help or hurt things.

PolarTucan

05-03-2007, 10:57 AM

There is some question as to whether Ophelia commits suicide. Gertrude describes her death as an accident, but one grave digger announces that her death was "doubtful" (possibly suicide), and she is denied full burial rites by the church on the suspicion of suicide--possibly merely "passive" suicide in that she did nothing to prevent her death once she is in danger.

To add to the theme of death as I stated earlier that I believe that when Hamlet and Laertes jumped into the grave of Ophelia it foreshadows their eminent death. The two struggle with one another over who loves her more and then end up dying due to one another's bickering. Perhaps Hamlet is so caught up in avenging his father's death, he doesn't realize the King's plot for Hamlet's death. Laertes dies due to his own tricks. He states “It is here, Hamlet. Hamlet, thou art slain. No med'cine in the world can do thee good. In thee there is not half an hour's life. The treacherous instrument is in thy hand, Unbated and envenomed. The foul practice Hath turned itself on me. Lo, here I lie, Never to rise again. Thy mother's poisoned. I can no more. The King, the King's to blame.” (5.2.321-328) In a way, the blame for Laertes death can be taken by many people, 1.) the King for coming up with the idea to poison the blade, 2.)himself because he went along with the trickery, 3) and obviously Hamlet for slashing him with said sword. The King contributes to many deaths. Old King Hamlet with poisoning, Laertes with his own sword, Hamlet with that sword, the Queen with the poisoned cup, and in a very round about way Rosencrantz and Guildenstern by sending them with the letter that Hamlet turned into their death sentence.

Hamlet is sort of fascinated with death in my mind. He follows the ghost when he was warned not to do so. He also kills Polonius and drags his body away to hide it and is rather morbid when asked of the body's whereabouts. He also ponders the death of Yorick while holding the skull. Shakespeare toys with the idea that life is frivolous with Hamlets to be, or not to be speech and when he talks of Alexander having the same fate as a peasant. He says, “ No, faith, not a job; but to follow him thither, with modesty enough and likelihood to lead it, as thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buries, Alexander returneth to dust: the dust is earth: of earth we make loam: and why of that loam whereto he was converted might they not stop a beer barrel?” I think a common theme is the pursuit of truth and he states the truth so well with this line. Rank does not matter in the end.

Layka

05-03-2007, 10:59 AM

I was just wondering about some of the instances in Hamlet where any character demonstrated suicide. I know some of the main parts, but i was just wondering if theirs some things that i missed.

Ophelia demonstrated suicide more for her own saving. She was so confused and broken that she doesn't know what to do. In the book Ophelia, she tells how she wants Queen Gertrude to be a mother-like figure to her. She does have feelings for Hamlet, and those are part of the reason why she kills herself. I don't think that she can handle the madness of Hamlet-him pulling her towards him and shoving her away. She looked in the stream before she killed herself, and she saw something that caused ain to herself. It was her- only it was the “mad Ophelia.” She started out so pure and as ruined and she saw that. She saw how terrible she looked. I also think that she was grief stricken, with the loss of her love and father; plus the madness of Hamlet put upon her.

Hamlet demonstrates the thought of suicide quite often. I think he does it more for attention than anything. He does talk about it to himself though. His famous "to or not to be" (Act 3 Scene 1)speech is all about suicide. I don't think Hamlet would have actually done forth with it, because he would not have let himself before he had the chance for revenge. I know a big part of his depressed suicide thoughts were to do with the death of his father, but I don't think he would have killed himself unless he would have known he could bring Claudius to hell with him.

Queen Gertrude may have thought about it after the talk with her son. I think Hamlet had “shone her the light”, by telling her of his pretend madness. She did vow not to sleep with Claudius. I do think that she caught on to the poison drink during the dueling. She offered Hamlet a drink of course, but I do think she caught on though. The question is, did she do it for Hamlet? She could have dumped it out; or was the reason about her guilty feelings for marrying her husband's brother.

Leartes was a special case. I think he put himself in a position of suicide. What if he knew the risk he had of losing. He knew he had to get Hamlet pretty good with his sword in order to not get in trouble for the tipped sword. If Hamlet got a hold of his sword- which he did- Leartes would parish, for Hamlet was the better swordsman. Not really a reasonable argument, but it had risk.

Jim58

05-04-2007, 05:24 PM

It's an interpretive comment - like yours that Hamlet is some sort of angry and immature teenager. That's your interpretation. My comment is mine.

You see, Shakespeare goes to great pains at the top of the show to emphasize the youth in the play. In 1.1 there's "young Fortinbras, Of unimproved mettle hot and full", the son of the deceased norwegian king and "young Hamlet". In 1.2 Claudius mentions, "young Fortinbras" twice. Laertes is presented as the son of Polonius, who like Hamlet needs his parent's consent to leave Elsinore. Then in 1.3 after his talk with Ophelia Laertes is the object in the fatherly advice scene. And then right after Hamlet has his time with his father's ghost, Laertes again (in 2.1) becomes the focus of a meddlesome father. Again there is consistancy in my position.

If one is to pretend insanity, politeness is contrary to the intended effect. I can't believe you're quibbling about "rudeness" on Hamlet's part when his father has been betrayed in multiple ways by both Claudius and Gertrude, as well as Polonius.

Intelligent, mature and complex people have emotions too - that's what makes them human. Nothing contradictory there. Your "consistent" reading is simply you deciding that a particular set of behaviors is ONLY enacted by a particular age group in society. That is fully incorrect.

You operate under the notion that these characters are real individuals with internal motivations. In fact these characters are constructed out of Shakespeare's mind. Shakespeare doesn't give the characters actions so that you can extrapolate all sorts of human qualities. Hamlet is given as much as is needed to fulfill Shakespeare's play. To that end Shakespeare fills out Hamlet with various behaviors that scream out immaturity. I keep pointing these out to you and you keep arguing concepts outside the fiction of the play.

In terms of the grave-diggers: you spent a lot of effort to argue a point that wasn't a cornerstone of my argument; I simply noted that speculation of age has to give place to the information the play explicity gives.

But, apparently you didn't read it or you wouldn't be operating under the misconception that the play says anything explicitly about age. Go back and please read my post again.

Next - I'm aware that Shakespeare doesn't follow Aristotle - I did not imply that he did; however, Shakespeare's plays reveal an awareness of Aristotle's discussion of the tragic flaw, and the tragic heroes do (in general) follow that model. Shakespeare's primary deviation from the classic dramatists was his abandonment of the "three unities."

You provide no support for this or any of your other statements for that matter. So then tell me, if Shakespeare has injected Hamlet with a "tragic flaw" I am keen to know what it is? Please tell me.

Redzeppelin

05-08-2007, 11:54 PM

You see, Shakespeare goes to great pains at the top of the show to emphasize the youth in the play. In 1.1 there's "young Fortinbras, Of unimproved mettle hot and full", the son of the deceased norwegian king and "young Hamlet". In 1.2 Claudius mentions, "young Fortinbras" twice. Laertes is presented as the son of Polonius, who like Hamlet needs his parent's consent to leave Elsinore. Then in 1.3 after his talk with Ophelia Laertes is the object in the fatherly advice scene. And then right after Hamlet has his time with his father's ghost, Laertes again (in 2.1) becomes the focus of a meddlesome father. Again there is consistancy in my position.

"Young" does not mean "teenager." Middle-aged people refer to those in their twenties as "young." You're not going to move me Jim - sorry. To make Hamlet into a bratty kid totally dismantles the granduer of the tragedy.

You operate under the notion that these characters are real individuals with internal motivations. In fact these characters are constructed out of Shakespeare's mind. Shakespeare doesn't give the characters actions so that you can extrapolate all sorts of human qualities. Hamlet is given as much as is needed to fulfill Shakespeare's play. To that end Shakespeare fills out Hamlet with various behaviors that scream out immaturity. I keep pointing these out to you and you keep arguing concepts outside the fiction of the play.

Shakespeare is largely famous for his ability to create life-like characters. My interpretations are perfectly in line with critical thought on the play. Yours are not.

But, apparently you didn't read it or you wouldn't be operating under the misconception that the play says anything explicitly about age. Go back and please read my post again.

You're hair-splitting; by the grave-digger's words, it is fairly easy to calculate that Hamlet must be near 30. Perhaps you need to re-read the scene.

You provide no support for this or any of your other statements for that matter. So then tell me, if Shakespeare has injected Hamlet with a "tragic flaw" I am keen to know what it is? Please tell me.

Do I have to explain this to you? Part of what makes a Shakespearean tragedy tragic is the fact that the death of the hero is ultimately necessary, but due to a flaw in the character; that flaw generally leads to a decision or action that results in the downfall of the character. Without a tragic flaw, we have plays that are missing the awful tragedy of a man paying the ultimate price for his choices; your idea of no tragic flaw means that tragic heroes become mere victims - which makes their deaths pathetic instead of tragic.

Jim58

05-11-2007, 04:21 PM

"Young" does not mean "teenager." Middle-aged people refer to those in their twenties as "young." You're not going to move me Jim - sorry. To make Hamlet into a bratty kid totally dismantles the granduer of the tragedy.

Gainsaying really adds nothing to the debate. If you disagree with my interpretation, please be so considerate as to explain your interpretation. Further, I never said Hamlet is a bratty kid. It's just the immaturity of youth.

Shakespeare is largely famous for his ability to create life-like characters. My interpretations are perfectly in line with critical thought on the play. Yours are not.

You have offered one interpretation. Hamlet as "a virtuoso intellect of devastating insight, irony and perception." This is not only static it is wrong. I on the other hand see Hamlet as a dynamic character who grows through the play. He learns about the duplicity of the adult world. He learns that his father had his faults and his mother wasn't virtuous. He realizes the difficulty in turning resolution in action. Part of his growth is ushered by three adults in the play - the Ghost, the First Player and the Gravedigger. Hamlet realizes by the end of the play how wrong he was about Ophelia and himself. The play is marked repeatedly about Hamlet's fears and doubts. No, I think your interpretation is wrong.

As for critical thought you haven't offered any in your support. The William Main reference doesn't address your contention. I do agree that the world of Hamlet "is a world "tapestries" behind which all the characters are hiding." I would appreciate more detail in your cite. I am not familiar with him. Might I suggest reading Harold Jenkins, Arden Hamlet. He's very easy to find on Amazon, in book stores and libraries.

You're hair-splitting; by the grave-digger's words, it is fairly easy to calculate that Hamlet must be near 30. Perhaps you need to re-read the scene.

I think you fail to appreciate that all editions of Hamlet derive from the three surviving texts of Hamlet. On the age issue all three text differ markedly. Read Steve Roth's, Hamlet: The Undiscovered Country. I don't know if the whole book is still available on line but the age chapter is here.
http://princehamlet.com/chapter_1.html

Do I have to explain this to you? Part of what makes a Shakespearean tragedy tragic is the fact that the death of the hero is ultimately necessary, but due to a flaw in the character; that flaw generally leads to a decision or action that results in the downfall of the character. Without a tragic flaw, we have plays that are missing the awful tragedy of a man paying the ultimate price for his choices; your idea of no tragic flaw means that tragic heroes become mere victims - which makes their deaths pathetic instead of tragic.

I keep pointing out that your analysis is wrong. Shakespeare did not model his plays off the rantings of a 2,000 year old philosopher. Second, Aristotle's analysis is PLOT based and not character based. Third, a character based analysis didn't develop until 1905 when AC Bradley wrote Shakespearean Tragedy which has been misinterpreted and ill-applied by school teachers ever since. I ask you again, if Hamlet has a tragic flaw what is it?

Dante Wodehouse

05-11-2007, 04:48 PM

Hamlet is probably younger than 30; he is called back from university to his father's death. His tragic flaw is his overbrooding. He thinks too much.

Dante Wodehouse

05-11-2007, 04:51 PM

I think Hamlet's real dynamic is his transition from the fantasies of youth to the realities and burdens of adulthood. Gertrude is a queen and mother who is also a sexual being. These are things that are a part of growing up. That's how I see Hamlet.

Interesting and quite possibly true. I never thought about it that way.

Jim58

05-11-2007, 06:17 PM

Hamlet is probably younger than 30;

My view is that Hamlet's age is more an expression of maturity rather than chronological precision. If Shakespeare wanted to apply chronological certitude then the age issue would have been more explicit. Take Romeo and Juliet where Shakespeare drew time in the play much more precisely.

His tragic flaw is his overbrooding. He thinks too much.

The problem with that is characterizing it as a flaw. How can thinking be a flaw let alone thinking too much? Further, what brings about Hamlet's direct demise stems from an act in 3.4 when he stabs Polonius without thinking. In the man/beast dichotomy drawn in the play, thinking is actually a human virtue.

I think this notion of thinking too much comes from a more complex thematic element that Hamlet stumbles upon in the 2B speech: the difficulties of translating resolution into action. This is pondered in the 2B speech and universalized by the Player King and Claudius. This issue isn't unique to Hamlet, it is part of our nature as humans.

Redzeppelin

05-13-2007, 01:08 AM

Double post - see below.

Redzeppelin

05-13-2007, 01:11 AM

Gainsaying really adds nothing to the debate. If you disagree with my interpretation, please be so considerate as to explain your interpretation. Further, I never said Hamlet is a bratty kid. It's just the immaturity of youth.

I have a problem with the term "immaturity" unless you wish to qualify the term. Your argument that his emotionalism is due to "immaturity" puts one possible interpretation on the root of his behavior. I'm simply contending that there are acceptable circumstances that could lead a mature individual to react as Hamlet does.

You have offered one interpretation.

Correct; so have you. We disagree with each other. So?

Hamlet as "a virtuoso intellect of devastating insight, irony and perception." This is not only static it is wrong.

Prove it.

I on the other hand see Hamlet as a dynamic character who grows through the play. He learns about the duplicity of the adult world. He learns that his father had his faults and his mother wasn't virtuous. He realizes the difficulty in turning resolution in action. Part of his growth is ushered by three adults in the play - the Ghost, the First Player and the Gravedigger. Hamlet realizes by the end of the play how wrong he was about Ophelia and himself. The play is marked repeatedly about Hamlet's fears and doubts.

Everything you said above is correct - but does not mean that Hamlet is "immature."

No, I think your interpretation is wrong.

So I hear.

As for critical thought you haven't offered any in your support. The William Main reference doesn't address your contention. I do agree that the world of Hamlet "is a world "tapestries" behind which all the characters are hiding." I would appreciate more detail in your cite. I am not familiar with him. Might I suggest reading Harold Jenkins, Arden Hamlet. He's very easy to find on Amazon, in book stores and libraries.

"We tend to define 'genius' as extraordinary intellectual power...Of all fictive personages, Hamlet stands foremost in genius. Shakespeare gives copious evidence of the prince's intellectual strength...Prince Hamlet is the intellectual's intellectual: the nobility, and the disaster, of Western consciousness. Now Hamlet has become the representation of intelligence itself... What Hamlet does have is an enormous sense of his own ever-burgeoning inner self, which he suspects may be an abyss. That suspicion seems to me the true subject of all seven soliloquies, not one of which is spoken in act 5.

"What would it be like to be confronted by Hamlet? Iago, who can so easily manipulate everyone in his play, would be unmasked by Hamlet in ten lines or less, and the Edmund of King Lear would do no better. Claudius is rendered furious or incoherent each time Hamlet tests him..."

Harold Bloom
I don't expect the excerpts above to change your mind; but these ideas inform my interpretation. These interpretations from Bloom do not point towards an immature youth - at least in terms of the general interpretation of the word "immature."

I think you fail to appreciate that all editions of Hamlet derive from the three surviving texts of Hamlet. On the age issue all three text differ markedly. Read Steve Roth's, Hamlet: The Undiscovered Country. I don't know if the whole book is still available on line but the age chapter is here.
http://princehamlet.com/chapter_1.html

I told you that I wasn't using act 5 as a foundational argument. The text trumps speculation. I simply pointed out that the only (reasonably) direct reference to age suggests that Hamlet is older than a teenager.

I keep pointing out that your analysis is wrong.

Yes you do - but "pointing out" is not the same as "refuting."

Shakespeare did not model his plays off the rantings of a 2,000 year old philosopher. Second, Aristotle's analysis is PLOT based and not character based. Third, a character based analysis didn't develop until 1905 when AC Bradley wrote Shakespearean Tragedy which has been misinterpreted and ill-applied by school teachers ever since. I ask you again, if Hamlet has a tragic flaw what is it?

I didn't say Shakespeare "modeled" anything on Aristotle. The odds are good that he'd read Aristotle and absorbed Aristotle's ideas about the tragic hero:

Aristotle once said that "A man doesn't become a hero until he can see the root of his own downfall." An Aristotelian tragic hero must have four characteristics:
1. Nobleness (of a noble birth) or wisdom (by virtue of birth).
2. Hamartia (translated as tragic flaw, somewhat related to hubris,
but denoting excess in behavior or mistakes).
3. A reversal of fortune (peripetia) brought about because
of the hero's tragic flaw.
4. The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought
about by the hero's own actions (anagnorisis).

These characteristics are consistent with Shakespeare's portrayal of his protagonists.

Jim58

05-13-2007, 02:41 PM

The odds are good that he'd read Aristotle and absorbed Aristotle's ideas about the tragic hero:

Aristotle once said that "A man doesn't become a hero until he can see the root of his own downfall." An Aristotelian tragic hero must have four characteristics:
1. Nobleness (of a noble birth) or wisdom (by virtue of birth).
2. Hamartia (translated as tragic flaw, somewhat related to hubris,
but denoting excess in behavior or mistakes).
3. A reversal of fortune (peripetia) brought about because
of the hero's tragic flaw.
4. The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought
about by the hero's own actions (anagnorisis).

These characteristics are consistent with Shakespeare's portrayal of his protagonists.

I am struck by your lack of scholarship. These posts are read by more than you or me. I think one has a responsibility to ground arguments in authority and to cite that authority. Now then not only did I reference this cite http://www.jsu.edu/depart/english/gates/shtragcv.htm 2 weeks ago addressing this very point but now you post an unattributed quote that you pulled from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_hero
If that's not bad enough, had you read the entire text of your authority or even scrolled down a screen length or so you would have seen this:

Tragic virtue
An alternative view of the tragic hero, especially in Renaissance British literature, is one in which he or she possesses a tragic virtue (as opposed to the Classical idea of a tragic flaw). In this paradigm, the hero exhibits traits that would under other conditions be considered desirable, but due to external circumstances cause their eventual undoing. For example, Shakespeare's character Hamlet from the play of the same name is often criticized for his contemplative nature, and his failure to act is cited as his tragic flaw. Under other circumstances, however, such as the kingship that Hamlet was to inherit, a contemplative nature is certainly a virtue. The tragedy of Hamlet, then, is not that a flawed character simply succumbs to his failings, but that a virtuous character is consumed by circumstances not under his control.

So then our audience should not focus on what brings Hamlet down, rather we should identify with his growth in a struggle cut short.

Cordell Walker

05-13-2007, 10:48 PM

Suicide is a touchy subject in many cultures. The Killing of one’s self is in some places considered honorable. In others, it is considered repulsive. One of the main themes of Hamlet is the evaluation of the act of suicide from many different angles.
During the play, suicide is considered religiously, aesthetically, and morally by a list of characters including Hamlet, Horatio, and Ophelia. They all agree on aspects in different categories, but each character treats suicide differently.
In Hamlet’s soliloquy in act 1, scene 2, he expressed how much he wanted to die, and also what is holding him back. “O that this too sullied flesh would melt, Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew, Or that the Everlasting had not fixed His canon ‘against self-slaughter” (1.2. 128-132). Hamlet wishes to die, but he cannot because he is restrained by Biblical law. Religiously it is unacceptable to kill himself. Hamlet believed that this course of action wild lead to hell or purgatory. Why die, just to face and afterlife worse than the one you just threw away.
Another one of Hamlet’s soliloquies, the infamous “To be or not to be” speech, dealt with his fear of this horrible afterlife. In this speech, Hamlet rationalized his hesitancy to kill himself. “To die, to sleep, To sleep perchance the 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” (3.1. 65-68). In effect, he said that people have to think twice before killing themselves because death is a gateway to the unknown.
Morals involved in suicide stem partly from religious views and partly from social classes such as the ones outlined in Class, by Paul Fussell. The upper class is allowed to somewhat dictate their own moral system, another difference between the classes is created by the social hierarchy. This is best seen in the dialogue between the doctor of divinity and Laertes during Ophelia’s funeral.
Doctor: No more be done.
We should profane the service of the dead
To sing a requiem and such rest to her
As to peace parted souls.
Laertes: I tell thee, churlish priest,
A ministering angel shall my sister be
When thou liest howling (5.1. 237-244)
The doctor understood the blasphemy of burying a woman who committed suicide in a Christian cemetery. It is morally wrong to do such. Laertes became angry because he did not want to believe that Ophelia killed herself.
Her social status caused the doctor to be overruled and Laertes disregarded morality to believed that Ophelia would go to heaven anyway.
People live because they fear the unknown. They use religion and other spiritual beliefs to attempt to shine a light on what lies in the darkness of death. In the end no one knows what the end will bring, but until they do hell will be the ultimate deterrent to suicide.

Redzeppelin

05-13-2007, 10:56 PM

I am struck by your lack of scholarship. These posts are read by more than you or me. I think one has a responsibility to ground arguments in authority and to cite that authority. Now then not only did I reference this cite http://www.jsu.edu/depart/english/gates/shtragcv.htm 2 weeks ago addressing this very point but now you post an unattributed quote that you pulled from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_hero

Why don't you spare me your indignation and respond to my argument? I'm not interested in what you think my responsibility is - Aristotle's comments on the tragic flaw are commonplace knowledge - the source is not a significant issue; did Wiki get it wrong? If so, you have a legitimate gripe; if it got it right, what's your problem? It's not like you couldn't find Aristotle's ideas on this without me citing. I agree that Wiki is hardly a scholarly site - but come on: some of us have lives and don't feel the need to spend excessive time finding sites that our discussion opponents "approve" of.

If that's not bad enough, had you read the entire text of your authority or even scrolled down a screen length or so you would have seen this:

Tragic virtue
An alternative view of the tragic hero, especially in Renaissance British literature, is one in which he or she possesses a tragic virtue (as opposed to the Classical idea of a tragic flaw). In this paradigm, the hero exhibits traits that would under other conditions be considered desirable, but due to external circumstances cause their eventual undoing. For example, Shakespeare's character Hamlet from the play of the same name is often criticized for his contemplative nature, and his failure to act is cited as his tragic flaw. Under other circumstances, however, such as the kingship that Hamlet was to inherit, a contemplative nature is certainly a virtue. The tragedy of Hamlet, then, is not that a flawed character simply succumbs to his failings, but that a virtuous character is consumed by circumstances not under his control.

So then our audience should not focus on what brings Hamlet down, rather we should identify with his growth in a struggle cut short.

"Should" is your idea. So there's an alternate view - now what? Hamlet's trajectory fits within the Aristotlian tragic flaw model. If you don't agree - fine. You're not the final arbiter of what the play is about, and C.S. Lewis and Harold Bloom both have asserted that the view one has of Hamlet is very much dependent upon the viewer - that we see a bit of ourselves in Hamlet and that each of us walks away with a bit different picture of him. My picture is that he's brilliant, ironical and experiencing immense trauma; your picture is that he's immature and in need of growing up. There you go.

srhoton

05-14-2007, 10:59 AM

There are numerous instances in “Hamlet” where suicide is contemplated. The struggle between life and death consumes Hamlet throughout the entire play. Hamlet considers suicide, which is illustrated in many instances throughout this intriguing play. Hamlet never does commit suicide despite his on going internal battle. Ophelia on the other hand does. So what caused Ophelia to go through with it and not Hamlet?
Hamlet contemplates suicide even to his last breath, but he never does commit this sinful crime. I feel that the reason that Ophelia had the “will power” to commit this crime and not Hamlet was due to the fact that he thought about what would happen if he did and Ophelia put little or no thought into this sinful action.
The famous speech “To be, or not to be, that is the question” ( 3.1.58) is one of the many times that Hamlet discusses the thought of suicide. He is wondering weather or not to commit suicide and end the pain of experience. He states that life is unbearable, but no one wants to go to a place that is unknown. He express this by stating, “And makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of?” ( 3.1.79-80) In this speech Hamlet never says why he wants to commit suicide, besides the fact that he is unhappy in life. He never said I or me in this speech. The words that Hamlet uses during this famous speech illustrates that this is but a debate that he is having.
Characters often say things to one another without directly stating the truth. Hamlet does this with himself. The fact that he does this during the play shows the readers that he is confused and unsure what he wants to do with his life.
“His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God ! O God!” (1.2.132) Hamlet wants to kill himself but he knows that if he does, he will forever perish in Hell. He realizes that God says that suicide is a sin and that is what keeps him from committing this crime.
Ophelia never does discussion the negative side of suicide. The reason that Ophelia commits this sinful crime and Hamlet does not, is because he analyzes the outcome and she does not. The thought of seeing his father in the agonany that he did and realizing that he would be the same causes Hamlet not to take his own life. Ophelia was so unbearly sad due to the lost of her brother and the death of her father, that she never even considered the possiblity of life without them. She took her own life and never thought twice about it. The simple fact of thinking actions through is the difference of life and death in this situation.

Ray Eston Smith

05-22-2007, 02:49 PM

A unifying theme of Hamlet is "To thine ownself be true" (1,3,78). Of all the main characters, Hamlet is the only one who finally is true to himself. Consequently, of all the main characters, Hamlet is the only one who avoids self-slaughter.

Even Horatio is taught by Denmark to "drink deep" (1,2,175) and so tries to drink the last drops of poison from the cup. But Hamlet saves Horatio so that he can tell Hamlet's story and teach us all not to drink from the cup of self-slaughter (5,2,346).

Fortinbras Sr. and Fortinbras Jr. value land more than they value themselves. Fortinbras Sr "did forfeit his life" fighting for land (1,1,91). Fortinbras Jr goes to war, "exposing what is mortal and unsure to all that fortune, death, and danger dare, even for an eggshell" (4,4,51), "a little patch of ground that hath no profit in it but the name" (4,4,18), that is "not tomb enough and continent to hide the slain" (4,4,65).

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, willing spokes to the king's nave (2,2,30;3,3,15), are deliverers of their own death warrant (5,2,44-59).

Polonius is a busybody, minding everybody's business but his own. Thus he was killed by a sword-thrust meant for somebody else. (3,4,33)

Laertes subverts his own life so totally and unthinkingly to filial duty that he is willing to go to hell to revenge his father's death (4,5,131). Although he is satisfied in nature with Hamlet’s repentance, he continues the fatal duel until by some elder masters [Claudius] he has a voice and precedence of peace. Thus he is fighthing not for himself but for a cause borrowed from Claudius.

When Laertes allied himself with Claudius he dulled the edge of his husbandry. Then, in the subsequent duel with Hamlet, Laertes first wounded Hamlet with his poison-tipped sword, then accidently exchanged swords with Hamlet and was fatally poisoned with his own sword. Thus he was a borrower and lender of swords, and was killed by a lent sword while fighting for a borrowed cause. [We shall see later that Laertes symbolized Christopher Marlowe and that "go far with little" is a paraphrase of Marlowe’s "infinite riches in a little room." (The Jew of Malta,]

Gertrude cannot separate her too two solid flesh (this "solidity and compound mass",3,4,49) from the doomed flesh of Claudius. Her soul is grappled to his "with hoops of steel" (1,3,63) - wedding bands. So she drinks poison, extending her union into hell (5,2,331).

Ophelia lets her brother keep the key to her memory. She "does not understand herself so well as it behooves" Polonius's daughter, and so she lets her father tell her what to think (1,3,105). When she falls into the water, she makes no attempt to save herself because her true self has already been lost. She dies by falling into a mirror image of her father in the "glassy stream"

Both Claudius and Hamlet Sr are unable to separate themselves from their land. So they slaughter their own souls, dooming themselves to be dragged down into hell by their possessions. Hamlet Sr is "doom'd...to walk the night" (1,5,10) to "walk in death" for "extorted treasure in the womb of earth" (1,1,140). Claudius could save his soul by sincerely repenting, but he cannot repent because he won't give up his kingdom and he cannot "be pardon'd and retain the offense" (3,3,56), he finally drinks a poison "tempered by himself" (5,2,332).

In the end, Hamlet recovers his true self in time to save his soul, although not his life.

http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/More_Motifs_in_Hamlet#To_Thine_Ownself__Be_True

drlex

05-26-2007, 02:14 PM

Like it has been reiterated over and over in this forum, suicide is very present in Hamlet. This leads me to two questions that need to be answered in Hamlet. Why does Hamlet like to talk about suicide, but never follows through with the action? Why is Ophelia quick to act on the subject of suicide, but does not have thoughts about suicide?

At the risk of contradicting the entire thesis of this thread, may I suggest that a wish for death may not necessarily mean that Hamlet desires to actively kill himself (which is the definition of "suicide"). Hamlet wants to be done with the pain of life - that is true, but I think he is more likely looking at life as tedious and difficult, and death as release from these things. But as to an actual desire to kill himself? I think many people in dire circumstances wish for the release of death, but if you offered them a chance to kill themselves they'd say "no - I don't want to instigate my death - I just wish I weren't here anymore, dealing with this pain."

Hamlet considers suicide many times, we see this in his “To be or not to be” soliloquy:

Hamlet
“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;…” (3.1.58-71).

He likes to play around with the thought of death throughout the whole play, but never commits the heinous act of suicide. I think that he puts a lot of thought into the consequences of death and that is why he never follows through with it. He wants to be able to repent for killing his uncle before he dies, but if he kills himself before having a chance he would go to hell. This is why he did not follow through with suicide and because it was not condoned in those days by the church. He wants to be true to himself and that could be a reason for his “insanity” that he plays up, possibly to buy him more time to think on how to get revenge on his father. I do not think that he wants to die until he has had revenge on his uncle for his father’s death. Even though he is a big procrastinator and waits until almost the end of the play to find out for sure that his uncle did kill his father. Even when the opportunity arises to kill his uncle while he is praying, Hamlet refuses because his uncle will go to heaven.

Ophelia is on the reverse side of this argument though. She has few if any thoughts about suicide, but is driven to madness and actually commits suicide. I think that she meant to commit suicide because of the details Queen Gertrude gives:

QUEEN GERTRUDE
“There is a willow grows aslant a brook,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream;
There with fantastic garlands did she come
Of crow-flowers, nettles, daisies, and long purples
That liberal shepherds give a grosser name,
But our cold maids do dead men's fingers call them:
There, on the pendent boughs her coronet weeds
Clambering to hang, an envious sliver broke;
When down her weedy trophies and herself
Fell in the weeping brook. Her clothes spread wide;
And, mermaid-like, awhile they bore her up:
Which time she chanted snatches of old tunes;
As one incapable of her own distress,
Or like a creature native and indued
Unto that element: but long it could not be
Till that her garments, heavy with their drink,
Pull'd the poor wretch from her melodious lay
To muddy death.” (4.7.162-179).

She fell into the brook and did not even struggle or try to get out. She just kept singing and the water soaked into her clothes and sucked her underneath the water and she died. In my opinion she was driven mad because of all the events that were happening and evolving around her which drives her to not even struggle to live anymore. I think that she does not see a point to living anymore and why should she. Her father is dead, her brother is away, and Hamlet does not love her anymore as he states in about the middle of the play.