Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
Hamlet, Act I, Feb. 1
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Candy
(new)
Jan 31, 2019 02:34PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
When yond same star that's westward from the pole
Had made his course to illume that part of heaven
Where now it burns, Marcellus and myself,
The bell then beating one,"
The ghost appears when the north star is visible. The true king is associated with the true north directional star.
Mod
Candy wrote: "And let's welcome Phil who is our discussion leader on this group read!"Well, this is intimidating. I read this play decades ago in high school and I've seen four movie versions since. I'm looking forward to the reread.
Oh, I also saw an outdoor performance called "Amled" at a Danish tourist trap. It was performed in Danish, featured a lot of melee fighting, and involved witches pulling guts out of plastic chickens and waving them at the audience. It was great.
What about the rest of you? Is anyone here a professor of Hamlet studies?
As discussion leader, I will offer some background.According to wikipedia, Shakespeare's idea is either loosely based on an old legend called "Amleth" from a 13th century book called the Gesta Danorum - Deeds of the Danes or an mysterious play nicknamed "Ur-Hamlet" by scholars. "Ur-Hamlet" was written either by Thomas Kyd or it was a rough draft by Shakespeare himself.
Here's the wiki link on Amleth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amleth#...
It reads a lot like Shakespeare's version.
From the notes to my Folger edition:
Hamlet was performed primarily in the Globe during Shakespeare's 1599-1603 prime. It was published in three different versions: a "bad" quarto which is very short, hard to decipher, and generally ignored by editors, a "good" quarto which is close to the play we know, and the First Folio edition which mostly overlaps with the good quarto. It is only somewhat possible to combine the good quarto edition and the First Folio, because much of the non-overlap is alternate version of words or lines.
According to Folger, there's no proof that the bad quarto was dictated by a bit-part actor (as has been theorized) or that the good quarto was copied from S's draft (as has also been theorized). The Folger notes dourly state that there is no way of knowing which of the versions is the most authoritative.
That's the official history. Does anyone have a different take?
Mod
I have several print outs from the Aarne-Thompson Classification of Folk Tales. In that classification index folklorists have collected stories from around the world and found that they have similar motifs and structures and ...well they have indexed them. Hamlet...is traced back to what is believed to be Amleth...and I have often wondered about Thomas Kyd's story. In the Aarne Thompson index...Halet is part of what is called "the strong boy story".
HAMLET is always so intimidating and partly because it can really test us and demand we get emotionally involved...and it has such struggles with justice. Which we all can relate to, no?
Here is wiki on Aarne Thompson classification systems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarne–T...
And here is an online access, very useful for looking at common motifs:
http://www.mftd.org/index.php?action=...
I just wanted to put a word in for the so-called Bad Quarto (or Quarto 1, more officially). I ignored it for years, but when I finally read it I found it far more interesting than I expected. Those members of this group who have not read "Hamlet" before, or not for decades, will want to read Quart 1 (the 'good quarto') or the First Folio edition (or, really, a modern edited version), but those members of this group who are intimately familiar with the play, I strongly recommend reading Q1.Here's a link to the Bad Quarto, but there are probably better versions readily available if you search a little harder:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3SN...
Be forewarned that there are things about the first quarto that might turn you off at first glance--mainly because some passages and speeches from the orthodox editions have become so canonical. The famous 'to be or not be' soliloquy is a case in point. It may well seem . . . wanting on first read, but give it a chance and you may find it otherwise.
Several summers ago one of our local Shakespeare-in-the-Park companies performed the “Bad Quarto,” and I’ve regretted ever since not going to see it because it’s an opportunity that probably will not come up more than once in a lifetime. The latest Arden edition is based on the Second Quarto, but includes an appendix with passages that appear only in the folio, and the footnotes list all the variations of individual words and lines. Arden has a second volume devoted to the First Quarto (the “Bad Quarto”) and the Folio versions. It’s interesting to compare them all after reading one of the “synthetic” editions that combines the Second Quarto and the Folio. I also have a version that presents all three of them in parallel columns.
Here is an interesting article describing two recent theories regarding what exactly the “bad quarto” might be and how it relates to the other versions: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sha...
Bobby wrote: "Several summers ago one of our local Shakespeare-in-the-Park companies performed the “Bad Quarto,” and I’ve regretted ever since not going to see it because it’s an opportunity that probably will n..."Thanks, Bobby and David. The scholarship in this group is amazing.
I feel your regret on missing the Bad Quarto performance. They did Two Noble Kinsmen here in Cincinnati a couple years ago. People flew in from all over to see it, while I sat on my hinder and missed it. I won't have that chance again soon.
Thank you for the article on the bad quarto
Bobby wrote: "Here is an interesting article describing two recent theories regarding what exactly the “bad quarto” might be and how it relates to the other versions: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sha... ..."Fascinating article, thank you! I love the idea of bootleggers in Hamlet's audience, and I also like the concept of S's evolution with Hamlet. I was not planning on reading Shakespeare this year (I've traded reading themes for mythology in 2019), but I have regretted that most of my Shakespeare reading with this group did not touch on some of the heavier dramas (Hamlet, Othello, King Lear)... so I've changed my mind, at least temporarily, so that I can read this play along with y'all.
And thank you, Phil, for taking on the leadership role.
Phil wrote: "Candy wrote: "And let's welcome Phil who is our discussion leader on this group read!"Well, this is intimidating. I read this play decades ago in high school and I've seen four movie versions sin..."
I first saw Hamlet performed on a high school field trip. I still remember some banter in a scene between Hamlet and Ophelia (you may be able to guess which one), thinking "Hang on...what did he just say??!!" It made a strong impression on my randy 17-year-old mind. Thus began a lifelong interest in Shakespeare.
In about 2014, I saw a remarkably good performance by a touring troupe from the Globe Theatre. They were aiming to perform in every country on the planet. Other than some war zones, I believe they came very close.
Globe to Globe Shakespeare
I'm not sure I experienced Hamlet at all until I hit Uni (and bear in mind I started my degree at 38), but my 'performance history' since then has been:- outdoor performance at Cambridge (UK) Shakespeare Festival, whilst working as the production photographer;
- using the David Tennant version to teach it;
- my GF getting tickets for a preview of the Cumberbatch version (which I later saw on nation-wide cinema screening); and
- watching the Andrew Scott version with some of my sixth-form students over two weeks as part of our English Society's cinema club. It was my favourite - the only one that's reduced me to tears ...
As to the play, I wonder if there's any better, more intriguing and evocative first line. The Chorus in Henry V is close, but still, 'Who's there?' is in a league of its own and gets me every time.
Yes, "Who's there?" is a great opening line. What do you make of the fact it's asked by the wrong person?
I suppose there are lots of things:- it could just be wrongly attributed;
- perhaps it's a sign of Bernardo's agitation, as he has seen the ghost before. Any indistinct shape in the dark might spook him. Also we're not certain whether Francisco has seen anything. As the earlier guard, Francisco may have been safely home and in bed
- maybe it symbolises some sort of uncertainty about the recent transfer of power in Denmark?
I'm inclined to think Shakespeare intentionally put the question in Bernardo's mouth--maybe as a way of drawing attention not just to the question itself (which can be loaded with meaning, depending on context) but also to who's asking that very loaded question.
Mod
I'd forgotten that Ron Rosenbaum (author of the article cited above) puts a different spin on the "Who's there?" question:"It’s a reversal of roles; the sentry up top is not challenging the climber below to identify himself. Instead the climber-up is addressing the unfathomable darkness at the top of the stairs, conspicuously calling out to the black depths of the universe above him. And asking the ultimate question: "Who’s there?" A keynote which could be construed as "Is there a God"?"
I'll also take this opportunity to praise one of the all-time best books I've read on Shakespeare: Rosenbaum's "The Shakespeare Wars: Clashing Scholars, Public Fiascoes, Palace Coups" (2006)
Wow, I love that take on the question. Is there, actually, special providence in the fall of a sparrow?
Boar's Head wrote: "...watching the Andrew Scott version with some of my sixth-form students over two weeks as part of our English Society's cinema club. It was my favourite - the only one that's reduced me to tears ..."Thanks for the lead. I look forward to checking it out.
What? There's an Andrew Scott version?! Jesus Christ, I wish I lived in the UK. I could die a happy person if I got to see Scott live on stage.@Boar's Head: Was it a theatrical production shown on TV?
Candy and David, your comments got me thinking; very interesting interpretations.
'Who's there?', a brilliant first line, indeed. These words capture the audience's attention like nothing else, really. And most importantly, it's done right at the beginning, as if to imply that the spectators are an integral part of the play and henceforth, they mustn't let themselves be distracted.
Regarding Polonius' advice speech-Every interpretation I've heard says that Polonius' famous advice speech is being presented for mockery. I can see that some of the advice is vague and unhelpful- basically "don't do stupid things." I'm wondering if it's all intended to be lame and pompous, though. Do you think that Shakespeare meant any of this sincerely? Is he mocking the content, or just the long-windedness of it?
Here's the full speech:
Yet here, Laertes? Aboard, aboard, for shame!
The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,
And you are stayed for. There, my blessing with thee.
And these few precepts in thy memory
Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportioned thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel,
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatched, unfledged courage. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel, but, being in,
Bear ’t that th’ opposèd may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice.
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not expressed in fancy (rich, not gaudy),
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell. My blessing season this in thee.
Boar's Head wrote: "I suppose there are lots of things:- it could just be wrongly attributed;
- perhaps it's a sign of Bernardo's agitation, as he has seen the ghost before. Any indistinct shape in the dark might spo..."
I don't think it is likely to be wrongly attributed, since Francisco seems surprised and even offended by the question. Barnardo has arrived with the intention of meeting Horatio and Marcellus (and the ghost!), as well as relieving Francisco, so that dark figure at the top of the stairs could be any of several people. The question is most likely meant to contribute to the general atmosphere of nervousness and uncertainty, not just about the ghost, but about the current state of Denmark.
Interestingly, in the First Quarto the question is asked by Francisco (who in that version is called "First Sentinel" and is not given a name). Maybe Shakespeare decided switching the lines would create the unsettling effect on the audience that he was working for.
Julius Caesar also has a scene in which a nervous character arrives in the darkness (during a thunderstorm) and asks "Who's there?" Julius Caesar was the first play performed in the Globe Theatre, and Hamlet was the second. When we read Julius Caesar a few months ago, I was struck by the numerous correspondences between the two plays that I hadn't noticed when I read the play in high school. It's almost as if Julius Caesar was used as a structural model for Hamlet, and there seem to be several inside jokes in Hamlet that refer back to Julius Caesar, such is this line, and these lines that occur later in this scene:
"A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,
The graves stood tenantless and the sheeted dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets:
As stars with trains of fire and dews of blood,
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse..."
Some of the characters even seem to correspond to each other—Hamlet was probably played by the same actor who played Brutus, and Polonius was probably played by the same actor who played Caesar. This will result in a major inside joke later in Hamlet. The company probably also had two talented female impersonators: a younger one who played Portia and Ophelia, and an older who played Calpurnia and Gertrude.
Phil wrote: "Regarding Polonius' advice speech-Every interpretation I've heard says that Polonius' famous advice speech is being presented for mockery. I can see that some of the advice is vague and unhelpful..."
i can see how this would be played for comic effect—Polonius starts by urging Laertes to get on the ship and not keep everyone waiting, then he launches into this long-winded sermon and keeps Laertes waiting even longer! It's also meant to set up Polonius as a hypocrite in other ways. The harping on sincerity and truthfulness is ironic in the context of his later behavior.
I love the way the courtroom scene in Act One neatly sets up the three strands of the plot. First, Claudius makes a public announcement of his marriage to Gertrude. Then there are three pieces of business to take care of: 1) The embassy to Norway, setting up the Fortinbras subplot; 2) Laertes' departure for France, setting up the House of Polonius subplot; and 3) Hamlet's rejected request to go back to Wittenberg, setting up the main plot. These three strands impinge on each other and create a counterpoint of three stories about three dead fathers and the revenge taken by their sons. The court then leaves, and in contrast to the public, artificial and ceremonial opening speech, Hamlet concludes with his first soliloquy, a very sincere and emotional speech uttered in complete solitude.
Hopefully you won't mind a little self-promotion, but the Andrew Scott version seemed to generate some interest. I watched this with some of my sixth-formers via the BBC iPlayer (it was on at the Almeida theatre, if memory serves), over two evenings. Here's what I thought about it at the time:
- https://boarsheadeastcheap.com/2018/0...
- https://boarsheadeastcheap.com/2018/0...
I don't mind self-promotion, not in this case anyway. Thanks a lot for sharing the links to your blog. I write about theatrical productions too, and I wish I could write that well.
Hello; I'm arriving late. The library only got this in for me two days ago.I've just finished Act I.
I last read 'Hamlet' longer ago than I care to admit, when I was studying it for 'A' level.
I am again struck by the mastery of design.
I am a bit puzzled by something that may be of no importance, that never struck me before.
Both Laertes and Polonius warn Ophelia against Hamlet's 'love tokens' and assume that his courtship is either insincere, or sincere but fleeting on account of his youth (Laertes gives him the benefit of the doubt: Polonious is dismissive).
But it seems odd that Hamlet, who is supposed to be in a distraught state, with his feeings numbed by the sudden death of his father and the (then inecestuous) marriage of his mother finds time to fall for and court Ophelia at this time, or perhaps continue courting her.
It can't have gone on for very long, as we know that Laertes and Polonius are protective of her, and that his father had been dead for one months when his mother married his uncle. We don't know how long the pair have been married, but it seems to make sense that Hamlet started courting her after the death of the older Hamlet, as they would have noticed his seeking her out quite quickly.
There are, I believe, various inconsistencies in the time scheme if you analyse it too closely. There is the fact that Horatio says he arrived for the funeral. He has been Hamlet's friend at university, and yet for some reason hasn't sought hm out at court until he is summoned by one of the 'gentleman soldiers' about the ghost walking. Are these both instances of these inconsistencies, do people think?
Lucinda wrote: "Hello; I'm arriving late. The library only got this in for me two days ago.I've just finished Act I.
I last read 'Hamlet' longer ago than I care to admit, when I was studying it for 'A' level.
I ..."
I wondered about Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia also, I couldn't tell if his courting intensity was because he was still pretending madness, or he was in fact grieving and heartbroken, or was being playful and seductive. The play I watched interpreted his scene with her when Polonius was spying as playful and seductive but it was confusing to watch. That same play (with Anthony Hopkins as Claudius) interpreted Laertes and Ophelia's relationship as nearly incestuous.
Interesting, Janice. In the old - 1980's - BBC version I saw, David Robb made a very appealing Laertes, but I can see that he is very possessive and over protective. It is interesting that the later scene can be interpreted in a way that doesn't make him seem brutal towards her. She is very deferential to all the male figures in her life, and has no mother to advise her. Maybe this leads to her downfall, when she becomes caught up in the plot with the King and Polonious later, when according to the ideology of the time, she must obey them, yet that involves duplicity towards Hamlet, which he resents? There is the argument whether or not she even hears the plotting, and whether or not Hamlet does. It is all very confusing. But I anticipate...
Mod
One thing I believe about Hamlet and his attempting to court Ophelia....is I wonder if his feelings are triggered by trauma. I believe it is not unusual, maybe mostly with young people, to reach to and try to find love when they have experienced grief, loss and trauma.
Years ago when David Cronenberg adapted JG Ballards novel "Crash" to film he said he visited a mental health organization in Toronto to ask how realistic Ballards novel might be....and the health workers said they had two people a week who would drop in saying they had aroused sexual attitudes and desire after a near-death experience or witnessing a crash, or some life threatening events.
Here is something...
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2011/02/04/....
"Crash is a novel by English author J. G. Ballard, first published in 1973. It is a story about symphorophilia; specifically car-crash sexual fetishism: its protagonists become sexually aroused by staging and participating in real car-crashes.
It was a highly controversial novel: one publisher's reader returned the verdict "This author is beyond psychiatric help. Do Not Publish!" In 1996, the novel was made into a film of the same name by David Cronenberg." From Wiki
Mod
"Autassassinophilia is a paraphilia in which a person is sexually aroused by the risk of being killed. The fetish may overlap with some other fetishes that risk one's life, such as those involving drowning or choking. This does not necessarily mean the person must actually be in a life-threatening situation, for many are aroused from dreams and fantasies of such"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autassa...
Thanatos as an explanation is fascinating, Candy.
Shakespeare sealed hidden stories (e.g. Lady Macbeth’s seducing of Duncan). Odd things in Hamlet have their reasons. Hamlet has a happy ending.1. Old Hamlet switches his soul with young Hamlet (reason of his cunningness).
2. Laertes and Ophelia are Old Hamlet’s illegitimates (“Laertes shall be king.”).
3. Ophelia is pregnant with Polonius’ child (reason of her madness).
4. Ophelia is drunk in the brook, not committing suicide (“her melodious buy”).
5. Ophelia is saved by Hamlet and Laertes and Gertrude (“to a nunnery”).
6. Claudius is a wizard with the witchcraft of Eden snake (“A Serpent stung me.”).
7. Gertrude is bewitched by Claudius (reason of her “o’re-hasty Marriage”).
8. Gertrude sacrifices herself to save her son (“Lord, I pray you pardon me.”).
9. Laertes fakes his death by changing the sword (“This is too heavy.”).
10. Young Hamlet fakes his death too (“I follow thee. I am dead.”).
Above can be justified by carefully checking related lines. The first one, soul-shifting, is not hard to prove. Shakespeare used many lines to demonstrate three shiftings in the ghost scene. It tells readers there exist more riddles in the play. Note words like boy, old Mole, shift, once more remove . . .
HAMLET. (YOUNG)
So Uncle there you are: now to my word; //SHIFT TO OLD HAMLET
It is; Adieu, Adieu, Remember me: I have sworn it.
. . .
HORATIO.
There needs no Ghost, my Lord, come from the
Grave, to tell us this.
HAMLET. (OLD)
Why right, you are in the right;
. . .
GHOST.
Swear. Ghost cries under the Stage. //1ST SWEAR
HAMLET. (OLD)
Ah ha, boy, say’st thou so. Art thou there truepenny? //boy is a hint.
Come on, you hear this fellow in the cellarage:
Consent to swear.
HORATIO.
Propose the Oath, my Lord.
HAMLET. (OLD)
Never to speak of this that you have seen.
Swear by my sword.
GHOST.
Swear. //2ND SWEAR
HAMLET. (OLD)
Hic and ubique? Then we’ll shift for ground, //SHIFT TO YOUNG HAMLET
Come hither Gentlemen,
And lay your hands again upon my sword,
Never to speak of this that you have heard:
Swear by my Sword.
GHOST.
Swear. //3RD SWEAR
HAMLET. (YOUNG)
Well said, old Mole, can’st work in the ground so fast?
A worthy Pioneer, once more remove, good friends. //SHIFT TO OLD HAMLET
HORATIO.
Oh, day and night: but this is wondrous strange.
JimF wrote: "Shakespeare sealed hidden stories (e.g. Lady Macbeth’s seducing of Duncan). Odd things in Hamlet have their reasons. Hamlet has a happy ending.4. Ophelia is drunk in the brook, not committing suicide (“her melodious buy”)...."
Those are fascinating conclusions JimF, and the bit about Ophelia being drunk and not committing suicide makes more sense to me, that was in fact my first impression.
Janice (JG) wrote: "... the bit about Ophelia being drunk and not committing suicide makes more sense to me, that was in fact my first impression."Yes, trust your instinct.
Why Gertrude and maids just watch and don’t save her? Ophelia’s sin (pregnancy) is purified by drowning in the brook.
GERTRUDE.
There is a Willow grows aslant a Brook,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream:
There with fantastic Garlands did she come,
Of Crow-flowers, Nettles, Daisies, and long Purples,
That liberal Shepherds give a grosser name;
But our cold Maids do Dead Men’s Fingers call them:
There on the pendant boughs, her Coronet weeds
Clambering to hang; an envious sliver broke,
When down the weedy Trophies, and herself,
Fell in the weeping Brook, her clothes spread wide,
And Mermaid-like, a while they bore her up, //“they” can be maids
Which time she chanted snatches of old tunes,
As one incapable of her own distress,
Or like a creature Native, and endued
Unto that Element: but long it could not be,
Till that her garments, heavy with her drink,
Puled the poor wretch from her melodious buy,
To muddy death.
The term “melodious buy” puzzles some scholars, so they change it to “melodious lay.”
Buy has the definition in OED as “4.I.4 To set free by paying a price; to redeem, ransom; esp. fig. in Theol. to redeem (from sin, hell, etc.). Obs. exc. in theological use, and in that now rather a conscious metaphor from 1; redeem being the ordinary word for this sense.”
Muddy: unclear, puzzled.
Soul-switching between young and old Hamlet is the key, which can explain many odd lines in this play.Young Hamlet tells us he will call the ghost “Hamlet”, so the young or old Hamlet has the same speaker name. Later we can only identify the speaker by the content.
Enter Ghost.
HORATIO.
Look my Lord, it comes.
HAMLET.
. . .
Thou come’st in such a questionable shape
That I will speak to thee. I’ll call thee Hamlet,
King, Father, Royal Dane: Oh, oh, answer me, . . .
“I’ll call thee Hamlet , King, Father” is a hint.
Mod
It's curious to me...because I do not see Hamlet as a tragedy either...but for different reasons than your detective work.
I LOVE the idea of old Hamlet entering young Hamlet and that imagery fits a bit with my take on Hamlet. For me Hamlet is a story of replacing the king with a temporary king when the kingdom is corrupt or about to be corrupt.
I see the characters as personifications of heavenly or celestial events. No one dies because they are all gods and it is about restorative balance.
However Jim your reading is so fascinating because it offers a new way of me looking at the calendric aspect of Hamlet!!!
Mod
Candy wrote: "Is it possible there is a "death" in the water by Ophelia...perhaps an abortion. Is there some hint of what she has drunk that might produce a miscarriage?"The first clue is Hamlet’s “Get thee to a Nunnery.” This line is repeated three times. Nunnery was a place for unwed mother in Shakespeare’s time.
The second clue is Ophelia’s funeral. She is in the coffin but not buried, for Hamlet and Laertes fight in the grave. It breaks the funeral.
Hamlet doesn’t know her funeral but appears, a coincidence? It triggers the fight of Hamlet and Laertes. Why would Shakespeare arrange this scene?
Assuming Ophelia is drunk in the coffin and awaking. She makes some noises. Her two brothers fight on the coffin to cover that.
Stage direction in 1603 quarto:
Leartes leapes into the graue. . . . Hamlet leapes in after Leartes.
Stage direction in 1623 folio:
Leaps in the graue.
