We probably doQuote:
Originally Posted by Bandini
Printable View
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’?