Why couldn't Gertrude, the queen, see the ghost? The guards, Horatio and Hamlet saw it. This is puzzling me.
Printable View
Why couldn't Gertrude, the queen, see the ghost? The guards, Horatio and Hamlet saw it. This is puzzling me.
This is a good question. We get to see the Ghost too. The obvious is that Shakespeare decided so; but why? Or, why not? What if Gertrude saw the Ghost? What then? Maybe he'd have to have more scenes about her character in an already long play.
Also, the fact that H. sees the ghost and she doesn't allows her to insinuate and accuse that he is mad, which leads to his counter-response which follows -- in effect, "Hey, this scene is not about my madness, but your indiscretion. And let me give you advice. I'm telling you the score; you're not telling me I'm off-base."
I actually developed a theory (not a very well-tested one, really) that maybe Horatio, Bernardo, and Francisco were all people of Hamlet's imagination. I cannot remember an instance in which any of these characters speak to any others (but I haven't actually looked through the text since I thought of this; it is possible that the final scene could invalidate this). Thus, Hamlet is perhaps convinced that something is "rotten in the state of Denmark", and his imaginary companions' accounts justify this for him, so he goes and busts a cap or two. Were this the case, Gertrude obviously would not see the ghost. I really kind of doubt all this, but it could be something similar.
perhaps the ghost only showed itself to those it wanted to. if it could appear and disappear at will, i don't think that's so amazing.
I agree with Mir. The ghost had possible ability to allow itself to be shown only to those it wanted to see him. Or maybe the ghost is merely a figment of Hamlet's imagination and that in some twisted sense Horation, Bernardo and Francisco got sucked into the weird play of his psychosis.
I think the nature of the ghost is an unresolved complication in the play. I think the only thing I can conclude is that who sees the ghost is based on what Shakespeare's needs are. The story of the ghost is a way to begin the play, and so several characters see it. But if Gertrude sees it, the whole plot would be screwed up; she would tell the King and who knows where it would go. I hope I make sense.
Jamesian: Interesting theory, but Horatio is a character that runs throughout the play.
But does he talk to anyone but Hamlet and the two guards? I cannot remember. Probably so. I guess he does give the "flights of angels sing thee to thy rest" bit after Hamlet dies, so he's probably a real fella. Who knows? Probably just poor writing. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I think the Ghost haunts Hamlet and not the Queen since Hamlet is the one who has to make a decision. The Queen has already made hers, the consequences are well known. Hamlet is, not only in terms of the ghost, the haunted one. Greenblatt suggested that Hamlet's underlying problem is covert catholicism i.e. a soul that couldn't receive the last rites has to spend a hell of a longer time in purgatory where the ghost would be coming from to remind his son of his duties as a son. Covert catholicism or not: The evil has to be atoned for him to find peace. What should be the King's reason to appeal to Gertrude who is partly responsible for his dire situation? Even if the Queen had seen the ghost, she probably would still have called Hamlet mad because, I think, Hamlet's madness does not lie in seeing the ghost but in his manner to deal with the problem i.e. he is going to feign madness, is going to "put on an antic disposition".
Thorwench: Does this apply to the other characters who see the ghost?
This is because the ghost can choose who does see it and who does not, (during the night when it is doom'd to walk, that is). All of its appearances are purposeful. It is crucial not only to see its speeches, but also to mark the circumstances of its appearances in order to determine these purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamleto
- In the first scene, the ghost's appearance becomes progressively real. As the guards, we want to understand what it is, and why it is. The most significant in this scene is its reappearance when Horatio, to some extent, accurately divines the reasons for its previous appearances:
"And even the like precurse of fierce events,
As harbingers preceding still the fates
And prologue to the omen coming on,
Have heaven and earth together demonstrated
Unto our climatures and countrymen."
This indicates to us (the audience) and himself that there might be some wisdom in Horatio's reasoning.
Therefore and moreover, the ghost's appearance was to alarm the guards in hope to meet Hamlet, who is certain to hear of it through them, and rightly, as Horatio promptly says:
"Let us impart what we have seen to-nightNotice that, though the guards can also see the ghost, it only ever talks to Hamlet in the entire play. The ghost is not seen again (or at least does not feature again) after Hamlet has talked to it (until Act III), thus, perhaps, indicates that it no longer needs the guards to see it and that its initial appearances are deliberate.
Unto young Hamlet. For upon my life,
This spirit dumb to us will speak to him"
- The reason why Gertrude cannot see the ghost is, again, because it does not wish her to. The purpose of this appearance is to scold at Hamlet for forgetting his given tasks: "This visitation is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose." One scold is, as Hamlet rightly says, it comes to its "tardy son to chide, that laps'd in time and passion, lets go by th' important acting of [its] dread command". The other scold, much more significant to your question, is because Hamlet was disobeying the ghost's command to leave his mother to the punishments of heaven by telling her the truth and asking her to repent.
In the first conversation with Hamlet, the ghost makes clear its disgust at the act of the "seeming-virtuous Queen":
"But virtue, as it never will be moved,
Though lewdness court it in a shape of Heaven,
So lust, though to a radiant angel link'd,
Will sate itself in a celestial bed,
And prey on garbage."
And, though her offence may not amount to the urgent punishment that the ghost asks Hamlet to give to Claudius, the anguished spirit of the King does not want to forgive her. If she was not confronted and advised of the terrible truth, she will not have the chance to repent and, thus, will have to face the consequences enforced by heaven (which she does deserve for her unknowing act of lust alone)(A similar reasoning is used when Hamlet decides not to kill Claudius whilst he is confessing.):
"Taint not thy mind; nor let thy soul contrive
Against thy mother aught; leave her to heaven,
And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge,
To prick and sting her."
So when Hamlet was very close to making Gertrude realise the unvirtuous nature of her new marriage and, even to persuading her that her new husband is a murderer, the ghost interferes simply to stop this from happening. If it lets Gertrude see it, the pale spirit of her murdered King, this would only further convince her that Hamlet is telling her the truth, and further amount to her remorse and penitence, which would be completely against its cause. But by not letting Gertrude see it, yet conversing with Hamlet at the same time, it, perhaps wittingly, aids Hamlet on his task of faking insanity. Therefore, this invisibility is purposeful. And, therefore, who does see the ghost and who does not is intentional on the part of the ghost.
Perhaps the ghost must be cunning in this, for, though Hamlet appears to grief and obey his father's wishes whole-heartedly, his just and extraordinary sense of morality understands the immorals of these wishes and contemplates them with even more devotion.
Regit: That was my next guess. :D
Your theorys not bad mine is that they are sub consious voices talking to conscious voices that being FRANCISCO and sub being BERNARDO and once they fall asleep FRANCISCO goes and enters MERCELLUS and thats when they dream
I agree with Regit. If Gertrude would have seen the ghost Hamlets feigned madness would not work. There is also an indication that there was an earlier version of Hamlet by Kyd (now lost) which included a ghost for theatrical reasons (horror, stunned audience etc.) whereas the medieval telling of Hamlet (then called Amleth) includes the feigned madness but not the ghost. So it could well be that Shakespeare merged the two versions (he often picked up on earlier works or stories) but changed the logic towards an inner conflict (i.e. Hamlet's). Greenblatt's interpretation goes back to those two versions and to the catholocism problem because he argues that SH. could have been a crypto.catholic for whom the prohibition of last rites and masses after death may have been a considerable problem. What I didn't know but found in Greenblatt's book was that SH.'s only son, called Hamlet (SIC) died, the play was written after his death. So, it is not unlikely that such religious issues which have a very personal meaning for the people concerned may have played their part in the shifting of the above mentioned focus. Perhaps the roles of Gueldenstern and Rosenkranz can be seen in the same light. SH's Hamlet studied at the first protestant founded university in Europe (i.e. Wittenberg) but has no the best relationship to his fellow students.
Very good analysis Regit. However, is a coincident that who sees the ghost also serves Shakespeare's purposes as dramatist? ;) Under your analysis why would the ghost show himself to the guards? He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone, not on that Danish field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
William Shakespeare's son, who died in infancy, was Hamnet Shakespeare, not Hamlet.Quote:
What I didn't know but found in Greenblatt's book was that SH.'s only son, called Hamlet (SIC) died, the play was written after his death.
That's true but the name is pretty pretty similar, my name exists in at least 4 different spellings all meaning the same (not to speak of the diminuitive versions). The name "Hamnet" was not that uncommon anyway, Shakespeares had a neighbour or something called Hamnet too.
So does whoever that does not see the ghost. In fact, the entire play, cast and plots, serves Shakespeare's purposes as a dramatist. Thus, statements of that nature are of little value. Characters have their own personalities and purposes, sometimes surpassing the expectation and control of the author. Besides, if they do serve Shakespeare's dramatic purposes, perhaps you could explain how with more than a statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The ghost, like all other characters, is subject to characterisation. Meaning, again, that its course of action is determined by its person and purposes. Its ghostly nature does give it different physical abilities and activities, yet changes nothing of its mental existence. Therefore, the dead King does not know exactly how Hamlet recieves his death. Whilst the rest of the royal family recover quickly and their grief is clearly but "the strappings and suits of woes" and forget underneath, it is perhaps natural for the ghost to doubt others' devotion to it, including Hamlet's. For, though Hamlet's grief is and does not seem, he does have on him, as the rest of them have, the similar "customary suits of solemn black", the "windy suspiration of forc'd breath", the "fruitful river in the eye", and the "dejected havious of the visage," identical to an outside eye; and it is a difficult task to separate him, who is with real grief from those without. Yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
"He could have appeared in Hamlet's bedroom to Hamlet alone," you say?
"Why, what should be the fear?
I do not set my life at a pin's fee;
And for my soul, what can it do to that,
Being a thing immortal as itself:
It waves me forth again; I'll follow it."
The enthusiasm of Hamlet to follow Horatio to see the ghost that might be his father's spirit is a testiment to his devotion (his soul and, thus, his purpose is as immortal as the ghost). It also proves Hamlet's bravery and determination, brought about only by his faithful interpretation of the ghost's appearance. For if his doubt that it might be a spirit of "goblin damn'd", or had "wicked" intents is more than his yearning to know what the spirit of his father has to say and to have justice, he would not have come, and he would not have followed it. YET, after all proofs, the ghost still has to be further reassured:
"list, Hamlet, oh list.
If thou didst ever thy dear father love."
The ghost's goal is decidedly revenge. Therefore, one aspect of the ghost's purpose is to find its ally; and it must embark upon this with care. It could have also appeared in Gertrude's room; her duty to avenge it is as heavy as Hamlet's if not more. It could also have appeared and spoken anywhere, for it is also a people's duty to avenge its King. Yet, trust is not a murdered, betrayed, and forgoten soul's quality.
That proves my point. The ghost serves Shakespeare's purposes rather than having any consitent rules of it's being. If revenge were the the ghost's motivation, then he could have shown himself to every loyal Dane in the country and they would have ganged up and killed the king. The rules which govern who and why see the ghosts are arbitrary within the world of the play, but conveniently serve Shakespeare as story teller to tell the tale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
I've already acknowledged your point: It's little more than stating the obvious. Shakespeare is a dramatist; "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" is a dramatic work written BY Shakespeare. HENCE, the play, including its entire plots and cast, must serve the purpose of Shakespeare as a dramatist. The "rules" within "the world of a play" should conveniently serve the story teller, since he is one who created them. That doesn't need to be proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The paragraph of mine the you quoted does not prove your point. It attempts to explain how the ghost's characteristics and reasonings lead to its specific course of action. As I have already said, characters have their own person and purposes (created by the author, yes, but, none the less, they are completely entitled to individuality).
That I'm afraid is wrong. Once the storyteller establishes the rules of the created world, he cannot willy-nilly change them just to serve his purposes. And that is what Shakespeare does with the ghost. The whole episode of the ghost within the rules of the "Hamlet" world is incongruous. Hamlet is a great play; but it is a flawed play, for several reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
I have no idea what you mean by this. If the rules of the ghost with the "Hamlet" world is that he is seen by people when he appears, then Shakespeare violates that rule in the Hamlet and mother scene for his own purposes.Quote:
The paragraph of mine the you quoted does not prove your point. It attempts to explain how the ghost's characteristics and reasonings lead to its specific course of action. As I have already said, characters have their own person and purposes (created by the author, yes, but, none the less, they are completely entitled to individuality).
Now that, I'm afraid, is wrong. Your logic here is flawed. I argue that the ghost can chose who sees it and who doesn't. Just because everyone sees it when the ghost appears in the first scene, that doesn't mean that it does not have the ability to 'not be seen' by a particular person at that time. (In other words, if you want to talk logic, the condition that 'the ghost has the power to choose who can see it when it appears' does not exclude the possibility of 'everyone in its presence seeing it'. Hence the fact that 'everyone in its presence does see it' does not void the initial condition that 'it does possess that power').Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
If it wanted one of the guards, or Horatio not to see it, that might still happen. But, if it did that, then they would not agree that it is real, which is something it is trying to convince them of (arguably the main point of the first scene), and Hamlet would not hear of it:
"Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,
And will not let belief take hold of him
Touching this dreaded sight, twice seen of us:
Therefore I have entreated him along
With us to watch the minutes of this night;
That if again this apparition come,
He may approve our eyes and speak to it."
The ghost had to let all of them see it, else this doubt will never defeated, as Horatio himself remarks:
"Before my God, I might not this believe
Without the sensible and true avouch
Of mine own eyes."
Thus the events serve the ghost's purpose (which is, yes of course, also Shakespeare's purpose for it), and that's why it doesn't use here the power that it evetually does in Act III. The fact that everyone in its presence can see the ghost, hence, is NOT a "rule" of the world of "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark". It is merely what happens in the first scene.
You would allow yourself to be critical before attempting to analyse (if you have on your own time, you would understand that it is important to make that clear). None of your previous posts amount to anything more than mere statements; when I, as a reader, naturally demand explanation and analysis. A dramatic master piece that took the greatest playwright of our time many years to complete, yet it would be summed up and broken down by: "The whole episode of the ghost within the rules of the "Hamlet" world is incongruous. Hamlet is a great play; but it is a flawed play, for several reasons"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Perhaps Shakepeare deserves the benefit of the doubt and our best effort to make sense of his work (though even that may not be good enough), and not to be briefly criticised. Your efforts are pale in comparison even to my deficient attempts at criticising your deficient criticism, let alone the great master piece. Be it that it must inevitably have flaws, it is of no value whatsoever to make that remark without any expanded explanation.
Very well. But if the ghost can appear to who he wishes, why doesn't he appear to all the Danes to kill the King? Or appear to the Queen before she marries his brother and stop the wedding? Or tell Hamlet that Polonius is behind the curtain and not the King? Or why doesn't the ghost appear again after the middle of the play?Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
I maintain that it is willy-nilly. There is no rhyme or reason. The ghost has every motivation to show himself to the Queen to prove that Hamlet's motivations are honorable and not insane.Quote:
Thus the events serve the ghost's purpose (which is, yes of course, also Shakespeare's purpose for it), and that's why it doesn't use here the power that it evetually does in Act III. The fact that everyone in its presence can see the ghost, hence, is NOT a "rule" of the world of "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark". It is merely what happens in the first scene.
Hey, I've been reading Shakespeare and Hamlet before you were even born. We've discussed this in class. The person who asked the question probably didn't think of it on his own; it was probably a class discussion. The question is not absurd, has been asked before, and is the subject of commentary. You shouldn't be such a snot-*** kid all your life.Quote:
You would allow yourself to be critical before attempting to analyse (if you have on your own time, you would understand that it is important to make that clear).
Well, that just proves how ignorant you are on the subject. Shakespeare averaged three or four plays per year through most of his career. He never spent even a single year on any work.Quote:
None of your previous posts amount to anything more than mere statements; when I, as a reader, naturally demand explanation and analysis. A dramatic master piece that took the greatest playwright of our time many years to complete,
Of course he does. But are you saying he's infallable? Are you saying that every one of his 38 plays are masterpieces? They are not.Quote:
Perhaps Shakepeare deserves the benefit of the doubt and our best effort to make sense of his work
Please do not personalise your comments.
When did I say that it was an absurd question? In fact, I spent the best part of an hour and a half trying to answer it, because I thought it an interesting question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I said Hamlet was a masterpiece. And I also said that even this masterpiece must "inevitably have flaws". Thus, I did not say that Shakespeare is infallable, just a lot less so than you are (or than, indeed, I am).Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Plenty of people did plenty of things before I was born; some efforts were remarkable, and some were mediocre. When and for how long you've read Hamlet, then, is really not a strong argument. If your understanding of it is so much better than my "ignorant" part, why not show it? Is it unreasonable on my part to take into account only what I can read and learn? And what have you written here that would teach me of your extensive knowledge on Hamlet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I believe I have already explained my reasons for believing otherwise. But you have not done the same. I do not say that I am right and you are wrong; I do not say that I am wise or knowing, I simply demand that, if you want to challenge my view, you must be prepared to put in reasonable effort, since I know that I have. And that effort must be HERE, not more than 20 years ago when you discussed it in class before I was born.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I already knew that you would maintain that, what I asked for was an explanation, not another statement. And look what I found to accompany your statement: "There is no rhyme or reason." Would you consider this a satisfactory explanation? You spent more words to ridicule me, having assumed that I have intentionally offended your person, than you did on Hamlet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Ignorant? You decide that I am ignorant on the subject simply because I said that it took Shakespeare many years to write Hamlet without explaining myself further? Shouldn't you ask for it if you don't understand what I mean? Yet my demand for explanation before rediculing is a snot-*** one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, I know that Hamlet is believed to have been written within one or two years shortly before 1600 or 1601 when it was first staged. But in the first authorised publication of the second Quatro in 1604 appeared great changes, indicating that Shakespeare had continued to work on his masterpiece until then. The first folio of Shakespeare's complete work published in 1623 also included Hamlet with yet further significant changes. This suggests that Shakespeare never stopped working on Hamlet until he died. It is for this reason that Professor Harold Bloom praises "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" as the Mona Lisa of literature (because Da Vinci never stopped working on the latter either). Professor Harold Bloom also suggests that, since he believes that Ur-Hamlet was written by Shakespeare, the play was only re-written after his infant son died though with major changes: it is a questionable claim, yet, still a valid possibility. Thus, to consider any of these elements would mean that it did take Shakespeare many years to write Hamlet. Even if you only mean to talk about its first completion, that's your stance; it doesn't make me wrong, and it certainly doesn't prove that I am ignorant on the subject.
And, to be clear, I never meant to make an attack on your person. Such is the nature of an argument. I was once told: "That's ok if you disagree with me. We disagree quite often and vigorously here on lit net. We don't hold grudges in our disagreements, at least I don't."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
I believe I have already answered the question. I cannot prove a negative within the context of the play, so therefore there is no quote I can cite to prove the point. I answer it by showing that the rules of the ghost within the play are inconsistent with the motivations of the ghost. If the ghost can decide who he wishes to see him, and he can communicate with living people, then there is no reason for him to not coordinate all the people to take revenge. Here's the ghost's motivation, from Act 1, Scene 5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
So clearly the we know the ghost's motivation. So now, Regit, if you're so smart you answer my questions which I'll repeat here again:Quote:
Ghost
So art thou to revenge, when thou shalt hear.
HAMLET
What?
Ghost
I am thy father's spirit,
Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid
To tell the secrets of my prison-house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres,
Thy knotted and combined locks to part
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porpentine:
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, list, O, list!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love--
HAMLET
O God!
Ghost
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.
HAMLET
Murder!
Ghost
Murder most foul, as in the best it is;
But this most foul, strange and unnatural.
HAMLET
Haste me to know't, that I, with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love,
May sweep to my revenge.
Ghost
I find thee apt;
And duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed
That roots itself in ease on Lethe wharf,
Wouldst thou not stir in this. Now, Hamlet, hear:
'Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,
A serpent stung me; so the whole ear of Denmark
Is by a forged process of my death
Rankly abused: but know, thou noble youth,
The serpent that did sting thy father's life
Now wears his crown.
I really would like to see your answers, mister smarty-pants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
If the play is flawed, then, surely, the evidence for those flaws would be in the play, no? And I asked for explanation, not quotes. Yes, I know you think that you've explained it. But:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
This is only a valid explanation (valid, not good - of course, you're entitled to say the same about mine) if you make clear what you believe the ghost's motivation is (and no, the word "revenge" alone is not enough an answer). You have not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
And what is that? I see here a quotation and an instruction saying: that's the ghost motivation. You can do better, can't you? The ghost doesn't just say "I want revenge", does it? It says many other things that must be of significance. So I will ask you again, what, do you think, is the ghost's motivation? I am not being patronising. It is important to establish exactly what the ghost's purpose is, as the smallest differences would lead to different outcomes. "Revenge" is only a general term; each person wants revenge in a different way. For example, eventhough we both agree that the ghost's goal is to tell Hamlet to take revenge, yet we have different reasonings for its action to appear to the guards first instead of directly to Hamlet. Yours is, of course, that Shakespeare's ghost is a flawed character. Here's to remind you of mine (which will also serve the purpose for my reasonings proceeding it):Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The introduction of the story of Fortinbras and his father is a clear suggestion that, in the world of Hamlet, the son's duty to his father is higher than the law or the man's honour to obligate himself to it. I will explain this. The young Fortinbras is determined to take back his father's land eventhough it is undeniably and fairly won by Hamlet the King. This prompts the world (expressed through the words of Horatio here) to assume on him the same flaws that are his father's ("unimproved mettle", "emulate pride"). Yet, we learn later that the young Fortinbras is noble and wise. But it is his duty to revenge his father that has him put aside his obligations to honour the law to perform it. Thus, it is only through the duty of a son to his father that the ghost can most expect help no matter what. YET, it still has to test Hamlet. TEST. And even after Hamlet has agreed to perform, it still has to monitor his actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
How, then, can it trust the general "Danes" for its onerous task?
The reason why it would not ask the Queen was explained in my first post: it wants the Queen to be prick'd and stung by the thorns of heaven too. And her help for revenge would redeem her and prevent this punishment. And, even if this was overlooked, the Queen is already deemed to be without "virtue" in the first conversation the ghost has with Hamlet. I will quote again:
"But virtue, as it never will be moved,Thus, she is not to be trusted.
Though lewdness court it in a shape of heaven,
So lust, though to a radiant angel link'd.
Will sate itself in a celestial bed,
And prey on garbage."
The reason why it did not tell Hamlet not to kill Polonius is because that event does not affect its goal whatsoever. In fact, it aids it. Only after killing Polonius, Hamlet has blood on his hands for the first time; and, more than that, it is for the cause of revenge (Hamlet thought he was killing Claudius). Thus, it is arguable that only after this point that Hamlet is fully committed to the task set by his murdered father. Indeed, appears after the event a philosophy not from before:
"For this same lord,and
I do repent: but Heaven hath pleas'd it so,
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister."
"I must be cruel, only to be kind"For the first time, Hamlet has to reason his own murderous action, and he does not fail. Before this event (the killing of Polonius), the closest Hamlet gets to acting upon his dead father’s request is to stand and watch as Claudius confesses to his sins right in front of him unaware of his presence. This is a break-through in his quest; and there is no reason why the ghost should prevent that from happening.
You can accuse me of being smart, Virgil (an accusation I would humbly deny); but you cannot accuse me of inserting that I am smart. When did I? In fact I even stated clearly that "I do not say that I am wiser or more knowing". You are the one who implied that, because you read Hamlet before I was born, I have to assume, without any evidence, that you know what you're talking about. That doesn't work in my idea of a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
First "snot-*** kid", and now "mister smarty-pants"? Do you think our age difference allows you to speak to me in that tone? I must remind you that respect, at least in our case if not in all cases, can only be a mutual understanding. I have already said that I did not mean to attack your person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Not really 'helpful' to your end of the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Let me explain my visceral reaction to your recent posts. It started with those sentences. Before those sentences I was humoursly engaging with you and the subject. I read those sentences as having a supercilious tone, actually quite snobbish. None of my statements amount to much BUT YOU ARE CRITICAL. Perhaps it just came across that way and I reacted. I'll assume now you didn't mean it to come out that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
So you're saying that there is more than meets the eye with this statement from the ghost:
OK, but rather convenient.Quote:
Ghost
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.
But why does the ghost stop Hamlet from emotionally torturing the Queen in that bedroom scene?Quote:
The reason why it would not ask the Queen was explained in my first post: it wants the Queen to be prick'd and stung by the thorns of heaven too.
And have Hamlet doomed to hell for the murder? What do you mean only after this point he is fully committed? He just stuck a sword into Polonious thinking he was the King. No, I think this is a weak argument.Quote:
The reason why it did not tell Hamlet not to kill Polonius is because that event does not affect its goal whatsoever. In fact, it aids it. Only after killing Polonius, Hamlet has blood on his hands for the first time; and, more than that, it is for the cause of revenge (Hamlet thought he was killing Claudius). Thus, it is arguable that only after this point that Hamlet was fully committed to the task set by his murdered father.
And what happens to the ghost after the middle of the play, when Shakespeare doesn't need him for dramatic purposes any more? Where is the ghost to guide Hamlet through all the difficulties of the revenge scenes, such as the killing of Polonious? But he shows up to stop Hamlet from arguing with his mother. The totality of the conveniences and the absence of the ghost from the middle of the play on when Shakespeare no longer needs him, leads me to conclude that the ghost is there more for Shakespeare's convenience as a dramatist than for any real thematic reason.
I explained why I reacted the way I did. I apologize for my tone and reaction. You are a smart young man. We are only electronically connected, so I can only virtually offer you my hand to shake.Quote:
First "snot-*** kid", and now "mister smarty-pants"? Do you think our age difference allows you to speak to me in that tone? I must remind you that respect, at least in our case if not in all cases, can only be a mutual understanding. I have already said that I did not mean to attack your person.
Absolutely. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Regit
You just aren't trying hard enough, Regit. ;)
Both the Ghost and Regit have explained this already, I believe. Furthermore:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
“Hamlet indeed has spoken daggers in his “shenting” of Gertrude. But when the Ghost appears and not only rebukes him for procrastination but also urges him to “step between [Gertrude] and her fighting soul” (113), Hamlet seems to be aware that he has violated the Ghost’s earlier admonition – tainting his mind by striving against his mother, rather than lending her to heaven.”
How do you interpret the following lines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
“But heaven hath pleased it so,
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.”
“I must be cruel only to be kind.” (Does this sound like something the pre-murder Hamlet would say?)
Are we really expected to engage in hypothetical inquiries about what Ghosts might be up to when not intervening in the corporeal world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Again, are we supposed to theorize about what an immaterial Ghost, allegedly absconded from Purgatory, is doing with his time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Maybe we should then ask, “Why didn’t Shakespeare just have the Ghost become corporeal and kill Claudius?” Sure, it ruins a lot of thematic aspects of the play, but it is a lot simpler dramatically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, actually it is. Hamlet was a divinity student at Wittenburg, and "scurge and minister" is a religious argument. I don't have resources at my disposal, but it refers to the possibility that Hamlet is an evil minister of justice. Which is one of the possibilities for what the ghost is as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
No, because that is not how Shakespeare sets up the world of the Hamlet play. He sets it up as the ghost wanting revenge, and that he can communicate with people, and that he can make himself visible. If the ghost violates some basic logical conclusions, then the audience has a right to pick it apart. You would do it for any movie that you see.Quote:
Are we really expected to engage in hypothetical inquiries about what Ghosts might be up to when not intervening in the corporeal world?
The ghost took the time to set the revenge in motion. Yes, it does mean something.Quote:
Again, are we supposed to theorize about what an immaterial Ghost, allegedly absconded from Purgatory, is doing with his time?
I take it that the world of the Hamlet play does not allow for that.Quote:
Maybe we should then ask, “Why didn’t Shakespeare just have the Ghost become corporeal and kill Claudius?” Sure, it ruins a lot of thematic aspects of the play, but it is a lot simpler dramatically
Look Hamlet is a great play. It is a great play in spite of some documented flaws.
Correct, that it is an argument that Hamlet has learnt and not one that he has invented. Aren't they all? But the point I put accross was not about the origin of the argument that he uses, but to stress the fact that it is employed only after the killing of Polonius. Where, before this point in the play, is such an argument used? Hamlet always has it at his disposal, yet he would not use it before. He could kill Claudius given a chance and having the physical ability to do so (that, you argue, the ghost does not have) yet he would not before. After this point, he would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
What point do you think I was talking about? Not the point where he rationalises his action, no. But the "sticking of the sword into Polonius" is itself the point, the turn of event where Hamlet has for the first time blood on his hand for the cause of revenge. The killing of Polonius is arguably the only action up until then that Hamlet has not comtemplated carefully, which resembles the decisiveness of his father that he does not normally have. It is a rash action, he misreads the plot (thinking Claudius was behind the curtain and not Polonius). Before that every plot they set up to try and spy on him has been read by him correctly: hiding in the closet, sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It also seems a rash action since he, though suspicious that Claudius is behind the curtain, initially does not really care whom it is that he had killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
"Nay, I know not, is it the King?"Later, he repents yet reasons: It seems that the act of hiding and intruding is enough to be killed:
"You wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell,If one makes it his business to intrude, it is up to fortune what happens to him, since what he intrudes upon may be very dangerous without his knowledge. Hamlet's reasons indeed apply perfectly for Polonius. But though it is his fortune that Polonius dies, it is still a punishable offence that Hamlet has comitted by killing him. The same would apply had Claudius been killed, thus answering the following:
I took thee for thy better: take thy fortune,
Thou find'st to be too busy, is some danger."
It is a non-factor, for Hamlet would be doom'd anyway even if it were Claudius behind the curtain. Claudius' sin is not for Hamlet nor for the ghost to punish. Personal revenge is not an act tolerated by heaven, not in Hamlet's mind anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
After the killing of Polonius and only a moment, though of great consequences, of rash behaviour, Hamlet regains his reasons. But it is changed: "I must be cruel, only to be kind". Indeed, immediately after this event, Hamlet reveals that he has discovered another plot (the letters) and himself is going to react to it very differently from before:
"But I will delve one yard below their mines,
and blow them at the moon."
This time, those that wrong him will receive more than his criticism and contemplation of their sins. A revengeful soul is not a clean one. Thus to be a successful one, it is important to get one's hands dirty first. No, I don't think that it is a weak argument. The ghost's hands are already dirty, it does not hide it:
"Until the foul crimes done in my days of natureIts cause may be just in its own mine; but that's it. And it is fully aware that Hamlet will also burn like itself for the tasks it asks of him. There's no reason for it to interfere with Polonius' death.
Are burnt and purg'd away."
I am afraid it is not so. First of all, a ghost is an entity that exists only in theory. Thus the ghost in the play is only another theory and whatever happens cannot be deemed illogical. How are you going to argue, in the strict sense, that an action belongs to a ghost is illogical when the existence of the ghost alone is already illogical. You can't, the ghost is theoretical and so are its actions. There are no rules "set up" for the ghost but one that includes all actions belonging to it in the play. If, at the end, it appears and kills everybody (yes, even though that is a ridiculous possibility) that action, its meaning, purpose, and rules would also be included in, as you call it, the rule of the ghost. Thus, up for debate is not whether the ghost's actions are logical or illogical, but how to interpret them to fit the events and morality of the play. Personally, there is nothing wrong with the ghost as a character. And if I find it difficult to interpret something satisfyingly or to come to a logical conclusion, I would try harder. Yes, I know there are sources supporting what you say; but one ultimately has to be responsible for his own words. You say that the ghost is a flawed character; and it is your own insertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Nice discourse. But we are going astray of the issue. Why doesn't the ghost focus Hamlet's actions on carrying out the revenge? He starts him up and lets him go, and yet he can stop Hamlet from abusing his mother. All willy-nilly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
:confused: :confused: I have no idea what any of that means. In theory? I think the ghost is quite real.Quote:
I am afraid it is not so. First of all, a ghost is an entity that exists only in theory. Thus the ghost in the play is only another theory and whatever happens cannot be deemed illogical.
Not within the world of the play. A sci-fi flick has Martians. Of course in our world they don't exist. But in the world of the movie they are a fact and logical.Quote:
How are you going to argue, in the strict sense, that an action belongs to a ghost is illogical when the existence of the ghost alone is already illogical.
Oh yes there are. Any author sets up the rules within his work and must be consistent.Quote:
You can't, the ghost is theoretical and so are its actions. There are no rules "set up" for the ghost but one that includes all actions belonging to it in the play.
Quite right that is rediculous. Why? Because Shakespeare has established rules at the beginning of the play.Quote:
If, at the end, it appears and kills everybody (yes, even though that is a ridiculous possibility
I never said the ghost's character is flawed. I said the play is flawed by the way Shakespeare uses the ghost.Quote:
Personally, there is nothing wrong with the ghost as a character. And if I find it difficult to interpret something satisfyingly or to come to a logical conclusion, I would try harder. Yes, I know there are sources supporting what you say; but one ultimately has to be responsible for his own words. You say that the ghost is a flawed character; and it is your own insertion.
Look, you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. I am going to make one last attempt to convince anyone in posterity that might open this thread. The fact that Shakespeare has a ghost enter at the beginning of the play, come up in the middle, and then never brings him up again, despite situations where he can provide guidence to resolving his motivation of revenge, smacks of authorial convenience. Why does the ghost not come back after the middle of the play, when the author no longer needs him? You never answer that. You can't answer that. It is a motif that is left hanging, and strikingly so. If in a sci-fi flick if martians start a war between nations at the beginning of the movie, and are never seen or mentioned again, and we just see the war and earthling soldiers, then it is a structural flaw to the movie. The martians were just a convenience to start the war. We forget about the ghost because Shakespeare has great characters, intense plot, and sublime language. But he leaves that motif hanging.
Point well-taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Just a theory, and maybe it's been mentioned, but could it be that, at first, the Ghost appears to everyone as it is there, in an ethereal form. However, during Hamlet's confrontation of Gertrude, he may be imagining it, due to his encroaching madness. This of course depends on whether you believe that Hamlet has actually gone mad in the play, or whether it is still an act.
It is an interesting thought. Though "enter ghost" may indicate that there is a ghost in the scene. The entire audience would see a ghost as Hamlet does, leaving Gertrude the odd one out. And I never even doubt that Hamlet might be mad (though is that a necessary condition for your theory?). But I think that there could certainly be a strong argument for your theory. Would you like to produce it? I'd be happy to discuss it with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by kindlybeaver
I remain curious about this point. I believe he was much changed, indeed (as I said above). I’ve seen it argued, however, that Hamlet still has “fighting in his heart” up until Act V scene II. Horatio offers to “forestall” the fencing match, whereupon Hamlet recites the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Regit”
“Not a whit, we defy augury: there's a special
providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now,
'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is't to leave betimes?”
“Hamlet now seems to have resolved all doubts as to whether he functions as minister or as scourge. Finally he no longer fears death or what may await him after death.”
C.S. Lewis described Hamlet’s world in the following manner (he references the above passage):
“The world of Hamlet is a world where one has lost one’s way. The Prince also has no doubt lost his, and we can tell the precise moment at which he finds it again.”
That was one of my stumbling blocks in the play. I lightly concluded that the Ghost 'hoped' that Hamlet would later confess and be exculpated from his crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Regit”
Either that, or the Ghost is just too bitter to care about the effects on his son, rather caring more about the vengeance. Which disagrees mildly with the image we get of him from other parts of the play (characters, comments, etc.), I think.
Who says they don’t exist? :alien: :alien: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
Surely there are a nearly unlimited number of possible reasons for this, though, right? You’re saying that your theory is the most probable?Quote:
Originally Posted by “Virgil”
I had finished with my argument, but the other day I recalled this in the critical commentary. Observe this famous soliloquy:Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
Notice these lines: "But that the dread of something after death,/The undiscover'd country from whose bourn/No traveller returns" The place where no traveler returns? Well the ghost has returned. Shakespeare has forgot his own the rules of the Hamlet world he has created. The ghost has returned to the human world and Hamlet has very much seen it. Could he had forgotten his own father's ghost? No Shakespeare has forgotten, because the ghost is a convenience. Shakespeare himself has forgotten it.Quote:
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
And do not credit me with any brilliant insight. I didn't think this up. It's in the critical commentary.
I agree with your insertion, that the change in Hamlet's mentality is a breakthrough, but there are still endless doubts in his mind. But, then, I don't think these doubts ever go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
"The readiness is all" may even imply that he is still not convinced. The readiness is all, yet, regardless of the readiness, the fall of the sparrow is inevitable. So, maybe, he realises now that more and more reasons would do no good: readiness is not the realisation of a wisdom that he has long searched for, but simply an acceptance despite reason. But, none the less, only with sufficient reason can the "fighting in his heart" stop, and it, thus, has not. Maybe it is not that he has found his way, but accepts that he would never find it and that getting on with his goal is the more realistic goal.
Indeed, we are not told here why Hamlet has finally succumbed to his fate, other than because it is inevitable. And without his struggles to find a right path, there is not much left for him to do but to complete his task and die: hence, he speaks that way. And because I firmly believe in the cause of Hamlet's struggles and his sense of justice, I do not think that this surrender can be viewed as "finding [his way] again". His quest for understanding is a great one, only his life does not allow it. Thus, I do not agree with C S Lewis' insertion above.
I found that the only words that might support this idea are: "taint not thy mind". And even these words can be interpreted in the other direction. In fact, in Act III when the ghost appears, it mentions two things: Hamlet's blunted purpose and Gertrude. It seems to be a repetition of earlier commands: "Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught", which further convinces me that "taint not thy mind" here is a command to Hamlet not to change his purpose (revenge), and not a reminder that Hamlet should not let his mind be dirty. But I am not denying the other possiblity completely.Quote:
That was one of my stumbling blocks in the play. I lightly concluded that the Ghost 'hoped' that Hamlet would later confess and be exculpated from his crimes.
Maybe. But maybe it does care, yet still decides that the revenge tradition is more important. It is fully aware of the consequences of sins, being an example itself - surely, having been punished for its sins, it must know what they are.Quote:
Either that, or the Ghost is just too bitter to care about the effects on his son, rather caring more about the vengeance. Which disagrees mildly with the image we get of him from other parts of the play (characters, comments, etc.), I think.
I think that the ghost's approach to persuading Hamlet changes:
"If thou didst ever thy dear father love
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murther."
Here 'love' is to be Hamlet's reason, yet...
"If thou hast nature in thee bear it not"...directs that Hamlet's constitution and sense of duty to his father should be the motive. Is it just listing things that might obligate Hamlet to its plan?
Which leads me to believe that, to the ghost, it is more important to achieve its goal, than to have a defined reason for it (at least this specific goal). This especially contradicts with Hamlet's mentality, who curses himself for the lack of his father's resolution.
And I think the comments on Hamlet the King's character only supports this view. Most of them come from Hamlet, and praise him as a man (in many places stresses masculinity): We see the dead King compared to mythology figures such as Jove, Mars, and Mercury: all masculine figures that Hamlet deems himself not to be, as he remarks on the difference between himself and Hercules (Hercules very readily takes revenge on wrongs done against him, often without much deliberation - so does Jove). And by the context of the comparison, we understand that Hamlet deems Hercules' quality good, and his own, bad. So we see that Hamlet the King is praised as a "man" indeed: but the nature of these praises does not prevent but in fact does promote the Ghost's choice of action, one that would "give the world assurance of a man."
Furthermore, notice how Hamlet does not react to Horatio's "goodly King" comment. Instead he ignores it completely with the "he was a man, take him for all in all" remark. And is "I shall not look upon his like again" necessarily praising? What were these "foul deeds" that the dead King has done? We are never told - Jove has endless foul deeds, often associated with lust and anger, as Hercules, his son.
Oooohh.. Looks like Virgil ran out of things to say.
Interesting argument, that one with King Hamlet's ghost. Regit explained it clearly and precisely. I actually felt like I was listening to an English Professor.
Hamlet is my favorite Shakespeare play, I never get tired reading it over and over but I never thought of questioning why Hamlet is the only one who could speak to the ghost..
If A is success in life, then A is equals to X+Y+Z.
Work is X; Y is play; and Z is keeping your mouth shut.
-Albert Einstein
I've made might case. I don't see anything that refutes my assertion that Shakespeare drops the ghost mid way because he doesn't find him useful. Compare the use of the ghost with the use of the witches in MacBeth. There Shakespeare gets it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by toni
I'm putting forth that the way Shakespeare uses the ghost is a structural flaw to the play. Regit's arguments (and good arguments, don't get me wrong; he's trying to do his best) are rationalizations through character's words. Those tell me that Shakespeare understood the flaw (remember he inherited the story, he didn't make it up himself) and tried to soften it. But a structural flaw in a work cannot be washed away with rationalizations. Like I described in the story with the martians and the war up above some where. Structure takes precendence over rationales. It is much more critical.
Hahaha, LOL. You just put the kiss of death to him. That probably means he's definitely wrong. I've never met a college professor who really understood the art of writing, unless those few who were writers themselves. And for your information I have a Master's degree in lit, which is pretty much useless.Quote:
Interesting argument, that one with King Hamlet's ghost. Regit explained it clearly and precisely. I actually felt like I was listening to an English Professor.
It is a great play, despite it's structural flaw.Quote:
Hamlet is my favorite Shakespeare play, I never get tired reading it over and over but I never thought of questioning why Hamlet is the only one who could speak to the ghost..
So make up your mind. At first you claim, with so much confidence I may add, that Hamlet crosses a threshold when he kills Polonius. Now you say he may not still be convinced. "So maybe" you say? It doesn't strike me as someone who is confident in his assertions. You sound as ambivalent as Hamlet. Can't make up your mind? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Regit