JaponicaQuote:
Originally Posted by Amleth
Glistens like coral in all of the neighbouring gardens,
And to-day we have naming of parts.
Printable View
JaponicaQuote:
Originally Posted by Amleth
Glistens like coral in all of the neighbouring gardens,
And to-day we have naming of parts.
We've been watching a version of Hamlet, on DVD, I don't know which one though. I think someone said that it was a BBC version, but I couldn't tell you any more than that. We've also seen it performed at the theatre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinaski
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the language, okay, it can be a bit confusing at times, but that's not really a problem. I'm just saying that it was much easier for me to read the modern version so that I could understand the story, and, when I read it again, for the purpose of studying, I read it in it's proper form.
Each to his own I guess! I still reckon... As for the theatre - unbeatable. I just saw Richard III in Leeds - Northern Broadside, so nice gritty accents as it should be - none of yer poncy stuff. Conrad Nelson was an amazing Richard.
Actually, in my case, it's each to her own but I won't bother with that. It's definately best to see a play performed, then you can really get into it, and I've found that it's far more memorable than if you just read it. So, is that one thing, at least that we agree on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinaski
I'm sure we agree on many things. I have reverted to my old member name by the way - it's a long story!
We probably doQuote:
Originally Posted by Bandini
So, it seems that most people agree that Hamlet is completely sane while some do question his sanity. He could be mad then again he could not be mad. Does anyone else have their own opinion on this question? I absolutely love reading these posts and they'll be useful for my coursework, so if anyone has an opinion please post it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiHAc
I think it makes sense that Hamlet believes that the ghost is his father. The ghost shows a lot of humanity in his concern for Gertrude and the state of Denmark. And of course, the descriptions of purgatory verify him. I suppose it's always possible that the ghost is a "goblin damned," but I think that because Hamlet believes him, we are supposed to. And of course, "The Mousetrap" is Hamlet's way of verifying the ghost, just in case.
Siorry I haven't posted - busiest time of the year for me. If it was another time of year I'd be really into it!
Has anyone mentioned the obvious - that he actually says he must put on (I'm paraphrasing!) an 'antic disposition'. Also, when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern first see him, he appears very lucid and waxes philosophical - as well as being rather rude in his opening exchanges!
The meeting qwith R+G is useful for this question - He also tells R + G that Claudius and Gertrude are "...decieved." and that he is "mad by North and North West...I know a hawk from a handsaw" It is Polonious who is 'mad' (senile) - "That great baby is in his swaddling clouts" (makes us think about labelling and madness - those that are labelled mad by society are mad?)
Also, Polonious says "Though this be madness there be method in it" He can see that Hamlet is lucid - Hamlet is basically a very intelligent young man taking the p**s out of someone who is learned but not really with it!
'Madness' is a social construct - what one society deems mad another deems spiritual e.g. North American Shaman, seers etc; if we mean 'mental illness' then we could say Hamlet is mad - he appears depressed: "I have of late...lost all my mirth." - but if we mean is Hamlet lucid and capable of reason, then we must say that he is not mad.
Sorry that's garbled and all over the place - got to dash!
Ah, an interesting comment. Do they? The following point has been disputed in recent years but I can’t remember who carried out the new research. However, here’s the point -Wittenberg (Hamlet’s university) was also Martin Luther’s university. So the fact that only Catholics believe in purgatory could make the ghost’s claims much more problematic. There’s an interesting snippet on it from the RSC here –Quote:
Originally Posted by lit_dork
http://www.rsc.org.uk/hamlet/learning/historical.html
and here –
http://www.rsc.org.uk/hamlet/teachers/purgatory.html
God that was garbled - sorry! I hope that people keep posting, cos I generally only check new posts and I would love to hear views/discuss the play when I have a little more time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
You're right about the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism in the play - it's certainly there and is an important influence. But I don't think this discredits the fact that the ghost is actually his father. And in some ways Hamlet's apparent Lutheranism is a problem not only between himself and the ghost, but also himself and Gertrude and Claudius (Gertrude tells him in 1.2 that returning to Wittenberg "is most retrograde to our desire" - I think that's it; I don't have the play in front of me). Hamlet's Lutheranism separates him (and Horatio, who is also a student there) from the rest of Denmark, the traditions of which he has a problem with from the beginning of the play. My personal interpretation of the ghost's being in purgatory is that it heightens a religious feeling about the situation. The religiosity of the ghost makes the reader realize the contradiction between Christianity and private revenge, which is what the ghost asks for.
A few more garblings on this:
Fisrt a couple of quote sthat are pointers to his state of mind (sorry no time for references):
"...a crafty madness keeps him aloof..." - he is able to avoid questions etc., by affecting madness
R or G (old friends of course, who know him well) mentions "much forcing of his disposition"
"...though it lacked form was not like madness..." - there is method in his madness - he is able to say what he likes under the guise of madness.
So he is not mad - as in totally 'hatstand'! But, as I said, yesterday he is depressed:
"...there is something in his soul o'er which his melancholy sits on brood."
His attitudes to Ophelia and Gertrude also suggest that he is 'mad' at women. see the hatred expressed toward women when he talks of them 'making men monsters' (cuckolds) and acting like, well down our end they use the phrase, slappers (!) - scornfully mocking thick make up, lisping and their wantoness in general. 'Nunnery' was also used as a term for a brothel - which adds another dimension to his many exhortations to "Get thee to a nunnery"
So maybe 'mad' as in a (almost irrational?) rage against 'frail' womankind..
That depends on how much a person thinks actual history was used in the play. Historically, Denmark was the first nation in Europe to adopt Lutheranism as the official state religion. That was under King Christian III, in the period 1533-1559, and Shakespeare must have known about it. The actual history goes right along with Hamlet being at the U. in Wittenberg. So, it would be Claudius who would really be "retrograde" in wanting to keep Hamlet away from Wittenberg. If Claudius isn't Lutheran, he's the one out of touch (as far as the real history is relevant, anyway.)Quote:
Originally Posted by lit_dork
Good point. I guess I don't usually read Shakespeare in terms of the historical context that he himself was using. And I think I've heard before, I can't remember where, that Hamlet is set before the 16th century, although I could be wrong about that. But I suppose we could speculate on what an audience would have thought about all this. They would probably recognize (depending on their social status) that Hamlet was conforming to the official religion of Denmark, but he is then clearly at odds with the ghost's religious aspect, and there is no doubt that he and Claudius have conflicting moralities, no matter what religion Claudius adheres to. Speaking of which, is there any clear indication whether Claudius is Catholic or Protestant? I can't remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amleth
The historical aspects don't really interest me - apart from in relation to Shakes. own time. I am, however, interested in the way Shakes. reflects his own, rapidly changing, times in his work.
The play is mixed, as to the time it's set. For one specific thing, the rapier is very much an Elizabethan type of sword. When rapiers are mentioned, that's straight from Shakespeare's own time. In the medieval time of Amleth, the weapon carried by Hamlet, or by Laertes, would have been a Viking broadsword, or more likely, a Danish battle axe, not a rapier. Also, the U. at Wittenberg didn't exist at the time of the original Amleth story, and the cannons are a Renaissance item. The play is mostly contemporary with Shakespeare's England, as far as the items that are mentioned, anyway. The mood is more medieval, tho, or seems to be. The "feeling" is Gothic. There's sort of a disconnect between the Renaissance things that are mentioned, and the medieval flavor of it, which adds to the spookiness, I think. In a way, it's as tho Hamlet is a Renaissance man trying to come to grips with a medieval world.Quote:
Originally Posted by lit_dork
Hamlet has been interpreted as reflecting the transition from Catholic religion to Protestant, in England and on the continent of Europe. Hamlet Sr has been taken as Catholic, but Hamlet as Protestant. It's been seen as going along with the change from Catholicism under Queen Mary to Protestantism under Queen Elizabeth, in England. But that's a pretty general interpretation, overall, and isn't really that helpful for the play events, specifically. The religious interpretation does bring in the different ideas about Purgatory. (The Catholics accepted the idea of Purgatory, while the Protestants didn't.) It would make the Ghost in a sense the "ghost" of the old religion, of Catholicism, and Hamlet the representative of the new Protestantism. But people who see the play that way will often go on to talk more about religious history than about Hamlet.
There's an interesting point about the Ghost, tho. Hamlet Sr must have agreed to Hamlet attending the U at Wittenberg, since he would have been paying the bills. So it would be a Catholic educating his son as Protestant, if the Catholic-Protestant interpretation is correct. Hamlet Sr would be a pretty liberal Catholic, if so.
It's a pretty safe bet that the people of Shakespeare's England would have recognized the religious elements easily, since the Queen was the head of the church, and church attendance was required. There's a document that shows an investigation of John Shakespeare, the author's father, for not attending church, as one example. Religion, (and it had to be the "proper" religion,) was a serious part of their daily lives.
My own view of Claudius is that he can't be very religious under any denomination, or he wouldn't be a murderer. That's about as iffy as it gets, in religious terms, when you kill your own brother. :) It gives the definite impression, to me, that Claudius is outside religion, until he tries to pray his way back in, as the Prayer Scene shows. He'd probably be one of those people who goes to church because he's supposed to, but sits there and only pretends to pay attention. That's my take on him. Formally, he's probably supposed to be a Protestant, a Lutheran, I guess. I can't recall anything specific that makes him one religion or another, tho.
I agree that Claudius is ultimately not very religious, but the prayer scene shows that he has a pretty clear understanding of it. He knows full well that he's going to hell so long as he remains king. He cannot will himself to get rid of what he gained by murdering his brother; it is a choice that he makes himself. And during the prayer scene he shows that he is more religious than others in the play. At that very moment Hamlet is playing God by deciding what will happen to Claudius' soul. Of course Claudius is not really praying, but Hamlet wants to make sure that he goes to hell. That's quite an affront to Christian belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amleth
I am convinced that Hamlet did go mad. At first I wanted to read the work blandly, that is without terrible characters and things happening on the pages I was reading.
However, I used a line-linking and searchable text to gather up all the references to mental illness, and collect them in categories I was familiar with.
shakespeare.wikia.com/wiki/
There are so many references, I can't go into them here, but Hamlet, himself sincerely, and rather pathetically confesses his condition to Laertes when he tells him that he wasn't responsible for his father's death: it was his madness that was responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by “lit_dork”
“O wretched state! O bosom black as death!
O limed soul, that, struggling to be free,
Art more engaged! Help, angels! Make assay!
Bow, stubborn knees; and, heart with strings of steel,
Be soft as sinews of the newborn babe!”
I would contend that Claudius was indeed sincere. He is making an effort, for lack of better phrasing.
[Rising]‘My words fly up, my thoughts remain below:
Words without thoughts never to heaven go.’
These lines don't pose very much of a problem for me. He is contrite but aware of the fact that, as you pointed out, he isn't going to be able to purge his soul without relinquishing his ill-gotten goods.
There are innumerable problems with that list.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Jagtig”
And of course there are countless interpretations of that statement, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Jagtig”
‘Pathetically’?
You have to consider the fact that back when shakespear wrote this, people had a different perseption on what they believed was mad.
Hamlet was always depressed, since the start of the book, he had always missed his father. The ghost was infact real, because there would be know way of knowing who killed his father and how he did it and that the fact that horatio and the guards saw it.
Hamlet puts on an antic disposition to act mad, not simply to confuse the people if he's really mad or not, but to keep them off track of why he is acting mad, to plot against claudius of course.
See, Hamlet was smarter than everyone in the play, no one could fool him.
I do believe he turns mad when his 3rd siloquey is heard. So all this time he was acting, but if you notice after the 3rd siloquey "I seen the devil himself" speech, he starts to act very strangely.
This debate is what makes Hamlet a great book.
I think that Hamlet is not mad, but very depressed and angry at the world that he sees as useless. He acts mad primarily to make others think that he is of no consequence, and because people often make observations that they would never normally say out loud in front of people that they think dont understand what they are saying (e.g mad people, children, etc.). My reason for believing that Hamlet is not really mad is that he seems totally sane whenever he is alone or with people he trusts, and dt the end of the play, prior to and during his duel with Laertes he shows no sign whatsoever of madness.
From today's perspective, isn't Hamlet mentally ill?Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus93
- He has been depressed for months following the regicide.
- He yearns for death throughout the play.
- He sees, hears and acts on the ghostly hallucinations.
- His behaviour toward Ophelia and Gertrude is erratic to say the least.
- He kills Polonius on a mere hunch.
- He entertains sexual fantasies about his mother.
- He admits, to Laertes, something akin to demon possession, "Yet have I something in me dangerous, | Which let thy wiseness fear"
- Most of the other characters in the play consider him mad.
Gladys, I don't want to get into an indepth debate, but I disagree most strongly with your theory. Here is why:
Absolutely NOT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Quote:
- He has been depressed for months following the regicide.
What do you mean; most of the other characters in the play are a bit mad themselves! :lol:
- Depressed most likely, over the death of his father and the 'all too hasty marriage' of his mother - understandable....
Hamlet may be experiencing depression after his father's death; but he is not longing for his own death anywhere in the play; yes, you might argue this in the 'to be or not to be' speech; but in reality, he is not to the point of truly wishing for it. He's looking to death as a way out of his present predicament of avenging his father's death; questioning the validity or logic of taking his own life. It is true that Hamelt is exploring the idea of death, throughout the play; however, he very much has a zest for life and living, which is being undermined now by the confusion he feels about his mother and sudden uncle's marriage and the appearance of the ghost of his father, commanding Hamlet, his son, to avenge his murder. It isn't until near the end while speaking to Horatio, just before the dual is to take place, that Hamlet finally comes to terms with his own possible death...(see the quote in Daniel's signature - that says it all). At this point he is finally resigned to the idea he might very well meet his own end..."the readiness is all". Much earlier than this, on the ship to England, had he really wished for his own death, he would NOT have altered the death verdict, that his uncle had written, therefore turning the evil upon his former school mates. He would NOT have bargained with the pirates for his life either. He is not mad or insane, to have been so crafty and logical in both of these acts. Also, if given completely over to the idea of his own death, why would he even bother to fight for it at the end of the play?Quote:- He yearns for death throughout the play.
The ghost was seen by others; therefore, it was no halucination!Quote:- He sees, hears and acts on the ghostly hallucinations.
If you examine the text closer, you will see it is not as erratic as first thought. He's in a temporary sort of manic state, after seeing the ghost and he blames his uncle; then after events evolve he turns his mistrust to the women in his life. His mania is not unfounded; it's based on extreme circumstances; and is furthered on by the appearance of his school chums and also Ophelia's rejection and then the spying of his uncle and Polonius. Both women give him reason for anger and a reaction; Ophelia bars him from seeing her, as instructed by her father; then she tries to give him back his letters; not only that, she takes part in this covert spying on Hamlet. How upstanding is that? She is not so wise herself, in the manner, in which she treats her former lover. Gertrude gives him reason for anger, as well, being outwardly proud of her new husband and not showing any signs of the loss of her former husband, Hamlet's father. How much do we even know of her grieving period? Both women have their own eractic negative moments.Quote:- His behaviour toward Ophelia and Gertrude is erratic to say the least.
Not so. He had the play to prove his point and just what was Polonius doing in his mother's bedchamber? Was that even proper? I would think from Hamlet's point of view had he seen it was Polonius he might have refrained from stabbing him but surely his anger would be at fever pitch. This is the second time he has spied on Hamlet. Yes, it's tragic he mistakes him for his Uncle. But even giving the offense of the Uncle once again hiding to listen in to the private conversation between he and his mother, this is an offense, perhaps not one to warrent being stabbed by. However, the prood of the murder is in the reaction of the King to the play and the poisoning. It is fairly clear now to Hamlet that he has the proof he has been seeking. Horatio backs him up on this. Always, Horatio gives credence to the conclusions that Hamlet comes up with.Quote:- He kills Polonius on a mere hunch.
What sexual fantasies do you refer to specifically? I have never bought into that one myself.Quote:- He entertains sexual fantasies about his mother.
Not sure where this takes place in the play but if after he is slashed by Laertes' sword near the end I can see why he would say this...perfectly understandable.Quote:- He admits, to Laertes, something akin to demon possession, "Yet have I something in me dangerous, | Which let thy wiseness fear"
Quote:- Most of the other characters in the play consider him mad.
Hi Janine. My post related exclusively to today's perception of madness. Mental illness, today, is assessed as a sufficient collection of negative behaviours.
Quite understandable in the circumstances - like almost all cases of depression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
There are oh so many quotes that suggest otherwise. For instance: "I do not set my life at a pin's fee"; "O that this too too solid/sullied/sallied flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew! Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd His canon 'gainst self slaughter"; "an unweeded garden, gone to seed"; "O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right!"; and "Absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain".Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Or the mass hysteria of superstitious people in troubled times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Certainly - but mental illness is defined by how your peers perceive you, rather than by self assessment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
If a mistake of such gravity happened today, the court would doubtless order a psychiatric assessment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Hamlet's obsession with sexual aspects of his mother's marriage would seem very odd today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Hamlet speaks at Ophelia's funeral; not, later, during the sword fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Arguably. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Hamlet's solitude slowly turns him mad, I think. He is pretty horrible to everyone and has turned his back on Denmark. In his solitude he contemplates some weighty issues and his preoccupation with them turns him mad. Let's face it, Hamlet's not the sort of guy you'd want in a crisis.
As for the Oedipal thing...it didn't scream out at me from the text. It's an interesting interpretation but one gained from looking beyond the text. However Hamlet certainly has some sexual hang-ups: maybe he might be a Puritan? He is repulsed and yet fascinated by Ophelia and his mother's incestuous relationship- the interest he takes in it is perverse. Like Iago, constant graphic and explicit language/images means that the character clearly has issues in that department.
To his credit though, with all others dead, Hamlet does save Horatio from the mayhem.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Hi Gladys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Interesting; how are you qualified to define mental illness today? One can have a collection of negative behaviors and not be diagnosed with mental illness. Look at how crowded all our prisons are.
Strange, I just watched a video tonight which broke down the various depressive illnesses by a clinician. One was depression brought on by a traumatic life event, such as loss of a loved one, especially a parent. The expert said this type illness usally resulted in several months of depression and was not serious. In Hamlet's case, his mourning period before the start of the play and the sighting of the ghost, would most likely fall into this category of completely normal behavior. The events that happen in the structure of the play and drive the plot add more so to Hamlet's melancholy state, whereas he might have been lifted from it in time had not the ghost appeared. Mentally ill persons, suffering from chronic depression, usually have no sound reason for that depression, because mental illness is a brain disorder based on chemical imbalances, even damage to the brain itself. It is no different than a physical illness; this is what many people don't understand about the illness and there is a stigma even to this day. Modern technology is revealing many advances and seeing mental illness in a truly new light. Circumstances play less of a role in making a person mentally ill than does genes.Quote:
Quite understandable in the circumstances - like almost all cases of depression.
Hamlet exclaims the first quote, while first encountering the ghost of his father. It would be understandable he would be in a state of shock and venture forth with little regard for his own life in order to connect once again with his beloved father. The second quote was also following a very stressful scene; thus totally understandable that he feels trapped his circumstances and wishes to escape from them.Quote:
There are oh so many quotes that suggest otherwise. For instance: "I do not set my life at a pin's fee"; "O that this too too solid/sullied/sallied flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew! Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd His canon 'gainst self slaughter"; "an unweeded garden, gone to seed"; "O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right!"; and "Absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain".
"an unweeded garden, gone to seed" not only describes the marriage bed of his mother with his uncle but the corruption of the state of Denmark. He is reflecting on the fallen state of his kingdom...fortelling of it's inevitable future.
"Oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right!" This quote shows the same thinking - being trapped in his new found situation and knowing he, Hamlet (the son of a king) now had the dread responsibility to set his father's murder straight. Who wouldn't wish they had not been born to deal with such a thing? Had he not reacted like this, I would have thought him mentally ill. A natural reaction for anyone.
"Absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain....speaking to..."
felicity - means happiness, correct? I don't think he means happiness in the true sense of the word here, but at this point what would Hamlet have to live for? Everyone who ever meant anything to him is now dead and to top that off, he gets word on his death bed, that his cherished kingdom is ceased by Fortenbras. By this time death is the only option and the only solace for Hamlet and he knows it. He has come full circle in his exploration on mortality and death. He is speaking these final words to Horatio, in order for him to stay alive a little while longer in order to convey the story to the others; preserve the true history of the events. Hamlet is quite in his right mind in appealing to Horatio in this statement which further shows how sane Hamlet truly is.
I can't buy into that. The ghost was first perceived by 3 others, prior to Hamlet knowing anything about it. If one, I might agree, but three other capable guards; no, never.Quote:
Or the mass hysteria of superstitious people in troubled times.
Mental illness is never defined by one's peers. It even takes a very good and qualified doctor to determine if a person is seriously and truly mentally ill. Mental illness is not an easy disease to diagnos, contrary to opinion.Quote:
Certainly - but mental illness is defined by how your peers perceive you, rather than by self assessment.
That is a different story and we live in a much different society, than the one that existed in Denmark during this period. People are arrested today for avenging others through violence. If there was no 'avengement' theme in Hamlet there would have been no point to the play; there would have been no play. It is also true that accidental deaths can occur, even within our society and be exonerated. For instance, if someone was to break into your house and threaten you and you shot them; an investigation would take place and you might be exonerated due to self-defense. There are many different circumstances and who is to say who would be evaluated, pyschiatrically speaking. How did Hamlet know that whoever was hiding behind the aris would not kill Hamlet himself. Is it normal to hide from someone like that?Quote:
If a mistake of such gravity happened today, the court would doubtless order a psychiatric assessment.
Like Kelby, I have never bought into this. I think the things he says concerning his mother's incestuous relationship with his uncle are born out of suspicion and anger at their too hasty marriage and his the fact his uncle most likely murdered his father.Quote:
Hamlet's obsession with sexual aspects of his mother's marriage would seem very odd today.
Yes, right after he's been attacked by Laertes and nearly strangled. I guess you or me or anyone might react the same way. Also, it follows directly after his return from the ship to Denmark; with his new knowledge that his uncle had send direct orders to have him executed in England. I imagine if we all kept our wits about us entirely at this time we would be pretty impervious to anything or any emotion. I think Hamlet acts within the normal range of a human being in suffering; not always seemingly logical, but certainly understandable.Quote:
Hamlet speaks at Ophelia's funeral; not, later, during the sword fight.
You know I do not agree. So, the uncle is totally sane? One could say he needs the psychological examination! He is driven by lust and greed and he is maniuplative and vicious and cunning; he has a lot of negative attributes in my book.Quote:
Arguably. :)
If you were to style Hamlet as a sort of Oedipus, you'd probably have to accept an Ophelia/Laertes attraction too, otherwise it just becomes a quick answer to Hamlet's madness. I think most people who buy into the Oedipal thing do so because they see Hamlet as being like Shakespeare and Shakespeare's wife was older than him- but again, that's looking beyond the text.
At the surface, Hamlet is feigning madness. This madness is in the original Hamlet story. Why would Hamlet do this? The text is unclear. Conjecturing,this feigning is on the one hand defensive; to convince the king he is not enough of a threat to dispose of, and to mask his body language because in such a closed community as Elsinore it would be impossible otherwise to hide his feelings. OTOH the madness is offensive in that Hamlet may confuse and flush out the king in some act of villainy Although this strategy appears rather passive, the ghost seems to concur with it, urging Hamlet's companions to swear to abide by his request that they not disclose their knowledge that Hamlet is only feigning madness.
So far so good. Now we factor in Ophelia. Clearly she throws Hamlet, causing him to slip, when he says "-- all but one -- shall live" (iii,i,148). This utterance seals his fate, as Claudius discerns the meaning exactly and decides forthwith to send him to England, and his doom. Ophelia, whom one would expect to know Hamlet exceptionally well, immediately appears quite convinced Hamlet is mad. "Oh what a noble mind is here o'erthrown".
Ophelia is either wrong, right, or deceiving. If she is wrong, then she is a dumb blond, and one wonders what Hamlet is doing chasing after her. If she is right, then Hamlet has lost it. If she is deceiving, then she is indeed a clever girl, understanding exactly what is happening and attempting to protect Hamlet by throwing Claudius off the scent. She has strong motives; her loves well-being, and eventually the Danish throne.
Finally, there is the ghost to consider. It is a rather catholic ghost. It is not out of hell, lost to redemption, but in purgatory, getting itself fit for heaven. One wonders what it is doing urging Hamlet on to revenge, with rather a strong possibility of his eternal damnation. If it came out of hell, then this point would be moot. But how could a good ghost have any business urging Hamlet to revenge it?
Before Hamlet even sees the ghost, he is contemplating suicide. "Oh that this too too sullied flesh would melt". Could it be that urging Hamlet to focus on revenge is somehow good for his soul? It is noteworthy that the only other time the ghost intervenes is when Hamlet visits his mother. It claims that "This visitation is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose" however it is mainly concerned for Gertrude, especially her soul. Indeed Hamlet has been particularly active of late; staging the play, working himself up to a frenzy with his "now could I drink hot blood" soliloquy, sparing Claudius at his prayers but taking out Polonius by mistake. Perhaps the ghost mainly desires to motivate Hamlet, but to be effective, needs to camouflage its true purpose.
One would equate Hamlet's actual madness with the state of grace of his soul. To cater for the ghost's motivation, it could be assumed that Hamlet is going mad in act 1 before he has met the ghost, that the purposefulness of revenge stabilizes his condition, that feigning madness lets him find an internal equilibrium and a means of deflecting his madness outwards. This would make Ophelia an accurate witness in the nunnery scene, but raises severe questions concerning their courtship. I find it not understandable that Hamlet could be annihilating himself and also engaged in the extremely optimistic activity of courting Ophelia.
I wouldn't call his relationship with Ophelia optimistic...he's not exactly the model boyfriend. In fact, there isn't any real indication of why they're together.
peter_ga, interesting post. I will try to get back to it later tonight. You bring up some good points or at least ones worth investigating. kelby lake, I think we are just not privy to how Ophelia and Hamlet's realationship is; except to say if you read her defense of her Lord Hamlet to her father and also her references to Hamlet to her brother, you will get some bit of an impression about their love affair. If you read between the lines carefully in the Ophelia/madness scene you also get the impression their relationship was not celebate and that he may have promised her to wed. I think they were quite involved considering the depth of the poetry he wrote to her.
peter_ga, welcome to the forum!
Yep, Ophelia certainly seems like the maiden defiled. She gets worried when Hamlet's having his mad episode and walking around half dressed so who knows what turned her mad?...
As an aging misogynist my views on Ophelia are probably quite suspect. Men, whom other men delight not, cannot consider this character without projecting their idealized female on to her. Nevertheless I shall present my range of alternatives and develop her impact on the play accordingly.
We have the Mary Ann Summers take; the simple kindly conservative girl raised by country people, who knows the names of all the flowers and what's what. Hamlet has told her he loves her, and she believes him. Her father tells her to drop him, and she obeys. Overwhelmed by all the attention, she obeys her father and Claudius to approach Hamlet in his madness, to talk to him. When Hamlet teases her at the play, she catches the innuendo immediately and tells him he is naughty, though letting him lay his head in her lap, which to her is completely innocent. When Hamlet insists he loved her not, she replies "I was the more deceived", ie you could have fooled me. She takes Hamlet's chiding not a bit personally, concerned only for him. Guys love that.
Now we move on to her Ginger Grant aspect. Is she a supermodel of medieval Danish society? Hamlet says she is fair, Claudius says she is pretty. (I recall somebody alluding to her celebrity status, possibly by Laertes when she is mad or dead, but I can't find it.) She is the daughter of the King's councilor and spy-master, and brother of the man who raised a rebellion that threatened the King in a couple of days. She has won the heart of the heir to the throne, but not the hand. At the start of the play, her father is forbidding her to see her love. How did Polonius find out, we ask? "'Tis told me" (i.iii.90) starts Polonius.
"'Tis told me." Its on points like this that Shakespeare is most infuriating. Does this idle chatter start from Hamlet, a servant, a chaperone, -- or Ophelia. What does Ophelia stand to gain? What if she knew her fathers prohibition was likely? What could she reasonably expect to happen? If Hamlet loved her, he would be forced to declare himself and to propose. Of course something like this happens, after much delay, and her father, instead of confronting Hamlet after the closet visit as she would have expected, goes instead to the king.
If this is indeed Ophelia attempting to initiate the next step in their relationship, it is impossible to do anything but admire her initiative, as the rules of courtship were such that she was unable to even say "I love thee" without risking impropriety and calumny. She certainly has the Queens approval, a not inconsiderable achievement.
Note that she positively exceeds her father's intentions when it comes to obeying him regarding denying herself to Hamlet. "have you given him any hard words of late?" her father inquires. This snippet indicates Ophelia is either so dense and timid as to bely her spirited rebuttal to Laertes and her winning of Hamlet's and the Queen's approval, or she has at least welcomed if not engineered the whole prohibition to gain a commitment from Hamlet.
Of course Hamlet responds after much delay, and poorly, after two months with his bizarre closet visit, and no doubt after she has crossed paths with him often enough, and after she has given up. She is sincere, though still forgiving and hopeful, with her "when givers prove unkind" line, because Hamlet has failed to deliver on his vows of love. He has fallen into a kind of self-pitying blaming type of attitude with his "nymph" remark.
As I mentioned above, she is attempting to convince anyone listening that her love is mad, perhaps trying to protect him, in the Nunnery scene. In the play, it is her line "You are as good as a chorus, my Lord" which seems like an attempt to stop Hamlet baiting Claudius, for his own good, which would indicate a high degree of perception. (Zefferelli gives this line to Claudius.)
Of course she fails to get Hamlet to propose, fails to protect him from Claudius in the nunnery scene, and fails to defuse the play-in-a-play scene. Nevertheless, she emerges with dignity as a perceptive power-player, effects a reconciliation of sorts with Hamlet, and it was all so close to a happy ending.
Finally there is the "minist'ring angel" side to her. She tells white lies in the nunnery scene, denying her father is there when she knows he is listening, attempting to defuse a crisis. She uses her political skills only to positive purpose. The initial relationship with Hamlet one suspects was initiated by her pity and kindness to the deteriorating Hamlet, probably turned by him from a friendship to courtship out of gratitude to her. One feels the Queen senses this aspect to her and this is how she gains that most important regard. She seems to be totally aware of all the undertows in the nunnery and play scenes, and actively engages to defuse everything, though partially failing. If Hamlet would have made a worthy king, then Ophelia would have been a worthy Queen, as she displays political sense and great kindness.
Actually Shakespear was secretly intrested in Vampires and vampire mythology, which he tried to incorporate into his works as sublty as possible! I read that Hamlet was one of his first works where he really let his belif in vampires show, it's pretty obvious if you read it!
Frankly, I don't give a dam