Brain Pain discussion
Hamlet - 2015
>
Discussion Two – Hamlet - Act II
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jim
(new)
Mar 02, 2015 01:42AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
The question came up in the Discussion One, thread, but I think perhaps here is a good place to reopen the question: "Was the ghost really Hamlet's dad?"I'd say 99% yes, and that's the thing that makes this play mysterious, odd, and challenging. It raises the themes that fascinated folks like Freud. The later doubt that Hamlet has, such as feeling the need to test Claudius's guilt before trusting a ghost that could have been sent by the Devil, is actually just his rationalization for not acting when he absolutely had to act.
The transition from Act I to Act II is remarkable. Nothing could be more compelling than to be directly confronted by your father's ghost, expressely told exactly the circumstances of his death, and commanded to take instant action for revenge, never forget, do not be distracted or dissuaded...
And duller shouldst thou be than the fat weed
That rots itself in ease on Lethe wharf,
Wouldst thou not stir in this.
...
...Remember thee?
Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat
In this distracted globe. Remember thee?
Yea, from the table of my memory
I'll wipe away all trivial fond records,
All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past
That youth and observation copied there,
And thy commandment all alone shall live
Within the book and volume of my brain,
Unmix'd with baser matter...
And yet, Act II arrives and Hamlet's playing at a madness game. It's too late already! Claudius should already be dead.
Sure, as we go along, all kinds of rational pretexts arise to account for Hamlet's hesitance. It seems quite reasonable it its way, and it--to some degree--accounts for itself to the satisfaction of the audience. But in fact, the command to revenge cannot allow itself to be so easily distracted.
Freud would have it, and fairly so, that Hamlet can't act because Claudius only did what Hamlet himself unconsiously wished to do, so to take revenge would be self-murder, a confrontation with his own shameful desires and guilt for his father's death.
But, in any case, even if later appearances of the ghost seem more doubtful, if Hamlet is given more reason to doubt his own sanity rather than trust the ghost, the first encounter between Hamlet and his father's ghost must be real if it emerges that Claudius really did kill the king (or else how did this knowledge communicate itself to Hamlet so early), and the existence of the ghost is testified to by witnesses on the night-watch before Hamlet is made aware of it. This is clearly, intentionally contrived in the very first scenes... we would be more inclined to doubt the ghost if Hamlet were the first or only witness to the ghost, but he is not.
Gotta say, I truly detest the Freudian interpretation of Hamlet. It has tainted all subsequent analysis of the play, and is based entirely on Freud's wishful thinking. I guess most analysis is, though, so I won't bash it overmuch.The first appearance of the ghost has to be real, agreed. Whether it speaks or Hamlet or not is open to some debate, though the play gives no reason to believe that the ghost didn't speak to Hamlet in Act I. And as you point out, the news of the murder would then need another conduit to reach Hamlet.
Act II brings us those hapless everymen, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
I encourage those who haven't seen it to watch the film adaptation of Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (not Undead; that one sucked). Try to see it while Hamlet is still fresh in your mind. It serves as an interpretation of the Hamlet as well as a character study with its own themes -- truly a great work.
Reading the last bit of the (long) second scene in Act II over my coffee. The players have arrived!
Mod
What's the debate over the ghost speaking? He has lines in the text, right?
Not a debate so much as idle musing.Hamlet is the only one who hears the ghost speak -- so while the ghost is visible to others, the actual message demanding revenge could be a delusion on Hamlet's part.
Not that it makes much difference. A ghost is a ghost is a ghost. All bets are off when you chuck one in the mix.
Mod
Hamlet is the only one who hears the ghost speak -- so while the ghost is visible to others, the actual message demanding revenge could be a delusion on Hamlet..."
Or you could say Hamlet is the only one the ghost speaks to. Otherwise, you would be psychoanalyzing Hamlet, which you just said you detest when Freud does it, no?
Jim wrote: "Or you could say Hamlet is the only one the ghost speaks to. Otherwise, you would be psychoanalyzing Hamlet, which you just said you detest when Freud does it, no? "As I said, idle musing. Just as the ghost being visible only to Hamlet in later scenes could be a symptom of madness in Hamlet, so the ghost only being heard by Hamlet could be another.
Not exactly psychoanalysis, there. And I don't actually subscribe to the idea, myself -- as I mentioned in the Act I discussion, the Ghost has no purpose in the play if not to inform Hamlet of the murder.
