Brain Pain discussion
Hamlet - 2015
>
Discussion One – Hamlet - Act I
date
newest »
newest »
Jim: I've read many different versions of Hamlet over the years, but the one I usually return to is the Riverside--it has all my notes and years of markings. I also have handy in my classroom a Bedford INTRO TO LIT used by my AP class. I don't see any reference to its source for their edition, but the Riverside seems fairly comprehensive in giving alternate verses, etc. Hope this will suffice..
I like how Shakespeare makes this fine distinction in the the opening watch scene. The ghost appears in his armor in which he battled Norway, not his shroud, focusing on that battle as a source of his restlessness--yet there he was successful, and, later in the Act, when Hamlet inquires of his expression, he is not frowning, but more "a countenance in sorrow than in anger." Note he actually won that fight.
I found out I'm reading the Second Quarto version. What's the main difference between both versions? Does the story itself change?
Mod
The First Quarto is shorter and is believed to be written down by someone other than Shakespeare - possibly a person in the theatrical group who recorded his/her recollections of a performed version of the play. The Second Quarto is more "literary", and although there isn't solid evidence, scholars believe that this version was edited, possibly by Shakespeare himself, based on Shakespeare's original manuscript, which, by the way, appears to no longer exist. In other words, there is more speculation than verifiable facts when it comes to declaring one version or another to be definitive.
All that being said, the Second Quarto version is the most often read and studied as literature, even though in performance, as mashup of the three versions is often the choice of stage directors. This is a huge topic and filled with controversy.
I will try to post more about these differences as the discussions continue.
Tracy wrote: "I like how Shakespeare makes this fine distinction in the the opening watch scene. The ghost appears in his armor in which he battled Norway, not his shroud, focusing on that battle as a source of..."Yes, I liked that so much. I found it curious how the ghost speaks to Hamlet as though he were a third party between his father and him. I mean, I was even expecting him to refer to him as "son" or so, and to refer to himself as "I", but instead he says "your father".
Jim wrote: "The First Quarto is shorter and is believed to be..."The Norton Critical Edition (2nd Quarto) has a facsimile title page that boasts:
Newly imprinted and enlarged to almost as much againe as it was, according to the true and perfect Coppie.
New and improved Hamlet! With 100% more angst!
Picking up my copy tonight. Looking forward to starting. I'm definitely a beginner when it comes to Shakespeare, so hopefully you all can help me out. :)
The compression of time in the first scene of Act I is interesting.As the scene opens, it is midnight. Horatio arrives, the position of the star marking the ghost's arrival is pointed out, the ghost appears. Horatio and the sentries discuss the meaning of the ghost, and its reappearance interrupts them. Then a cock crows (i.e. dawn breaks), Horatio decides to tell Hamlet, and goes with Marcellus to "where he can be found [presently]".
When they enter upon Hamlet in the court, Claudius has already dispatched two messengers to Norway, and he and Gertrude have urged Hamlet to act less like a teenager, leaving him alone to sulk.
Assuming that Claudius is an early riser, we're still looking at 12 hours (midnight to noon) covered from the first scene to when Horatio finds Hamlet.
Shakespeare is notorious for his compression of time, but usually that entails collapsing into days events that are separated by years in the source material (Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, virtually all of the Histories).
Here, the sense of time passing by the audience is compressed. A mere hack to employ an expository opening? Or an attempt to convey that strange things are afoot in Denmark?
Scene ii is by far my favorite in Act I, the courtroom scene : someone wise once pointed out to me its trajectory, which has always stayed with me. The scene starts off as a very public, formal and courtly, and degenerates into a family squabble--one of the dangers, I suppose, in the days when family and government hierarchy were linked together.Some of this degeneration has to do with Claudius' inability to behave in a "natural" manner, due to his choices. For anyone new to Shakespeare and Elizabethan English, I should explain that "natural"--behavior roughly equates to moral behavior. The Elizabethans had a concept of the Chain of Being, that echoed a notion that higher beings were more spirit than matter, and were rewarded by God with rank on earth--hence the notion of Divine Right of Kings. "Unnatural" behavior breaks the rules--doesn't respect God's natural order, and Claudius has already done this with his first words, plus his questionable marriage to his sister-in-law, allegedly to preserve the state. Note his insistence on "mirth in funeral", and "dirge in marriage".
Court was supposed to be a product of order--whoever is highest ranked should be addressed first, out of respect. Claudius seems to completely ignore protocol, addressing the lowest ranked first, then proceeding up, last, to.....our cousin Hamlet. Who, in theory, is higher ranked than himself--no wonder something is rotten in Denmark!! But, of course, he doesn't want anyone to recognize Hamlet in this way...
..and Hamlet helps.
Acting superstitions 101: the Ghost in Hamlet never, never, ever wears his "ghost costume" backstage. Never. Very bad mojo.
Elizabeth wrote: "Acting superstitions 101: the Ghost in Hamlet never, never, ever wears his "ghost costume" backstage. Never. Very bad mojo."Oh, that's great! I never heard that! I only knew the MacBeth superstitions.
To booze, or not to booze?I.ii:175 HAM "We'll teach you to drink deep ere you depart."
I.iv:36 HAM "The dram of evil Doth all the noble substance often doubt To his own scandal."
This man is a tangle of contradictions!
Mkfs wrote: "To booze, or not to booze?I.ii:175 HAM "We'll teach you to drink deep ere you depart."
I.iv:36 HAM "The dram of evil Doth all the noble substance often doubt To his own scandal."
This man is a ..."
Yeah, but, in one part he was playing the bon vivant with his old school chum, and in the other glowering about people he doesn't respect-- I think a lot of people display those sorts of contradictions. One thing to note about Hamlet--sometimes what he is saying is an act.
I noticed the time-compression was odd, too, and found myself wondering about geography... are they far enough north for white nights (or nearly?) (This is not intended as a deep question worthy of answering).Another thought: Claudius chastises young Hamlet for mourning his father too long and too sorrowfully. Hamlet's mom does too. This makes us, obviously, start to despise Claudius and Gertrude, but it seemed to me that it also serves a second purpose: it preempts the audience's potential response, as we too might chide Hamlet for his womanly weeping and unmanly vaporishness (I like redundancy). Now, instead, we're less inclined to support Claudius's attitude of deal with it, your dad is dead.
Another note: it seemed odd that, in Act I, Scene 1, Shakespeare includes this little factoid about the dearth of ghosts around the time of Christmas:
Some say that ever, 'gainst that season comes
Wherein our Saviour's birth is celebrated,
The bird of dawning singeth all night long;
And then, they say, no spirit dare stir abroad,
The nights are wholesome, then no planets strike,
No fairy takes, nor witch hath power to charm,
So hallow'd and so gracious is the time.
It just left me wondering whether anything more is intended here, or else why he chose to have Horatio include this in his speech.
Tracy wrote: "One thing to note about Hamlet--sometimes what he is saying is an act."Yes, as is the case with any figure at court. His riddle-infested dissembling, however, does not start until after the Ghost informs him of his father's murder. Until then, he is not in fear for his life; he is just disillusioned with his mother.
Zadignose wrote: "... are they far enough north for white nights (or nearly?)"That hadn't occurred to me. This is Denmark, so they are certainly far enough north to experience white (or at least very short) nights. That would put the start of the play somewhere between May and July, maybe August.
The Saxo Grammaticus (sounds like an Ian Dury song) source for Hamlet doesn't have a ghost at all. The whole supernatural element in Hamlet is questionable: the ghost speaks only to him, after the first act nobody can see it, etc.
Does the play specifically extend into the holiday season? I don't recall that it does. If it does, though, the mention of a spiritless Christmas might be a clue that later appearances of the ghost are delusional.
Mkfs wrote: "...Then a cock crows (i.e. dawn breaks), Horatio decides to tell Hamlet, and goes with Marcellus to 'where he can be found [presently]'...."I presume literary allusions linking the cock's crow with dawn and with unfaithfulness predate Peter's dilemma (e.g., Mark 14:66-72)?
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Mark+14
Lily wrote: "I presume literary allusions linking the cock's crow with dawn and with unfaithfulness predate Peter's dilemma..."The link with dawn has probably been in storytelling as long as humans have been agricultural.
For a specific example, there's always Aristophanes (my go-to playwright for "how old is this dramatic idea?"):
Great gods! will these nights never end? will daylight never come? I heard the cock crow long ago and my slaves are snoring still!
As for the link with unfaithfulness, I don't know of a precursor.
As a chicken owner, I have to say: roosters do not crow at dawn; they crow from about one a.m. on.And: Poncho, re Hamlet's first encounter with the Ghost. The formality ("your father") was in keeping with the mores of upper-class families of the time.
However: a major torment of Hamlet's is: is the Ghost real? Is it not his father, but a demon? The ambiguity in the way the Ghost speaks to him introduces this theme.
Mkfs wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "... are they far enough north for white nights (or nearly?)"That hadn't occurred to me. This is Denmark, so they are certainly far enough north to experience white (or at least ..."
)) Ian Drury reference...
That brings up a lot of interesting ideas. About the reality of the ghost and Hamlet's sanity. I always wanted to see a production of Hamlet where he is noticeably insane. Call me morbid.)
Tracy wrote: "Mkfs wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "... are they far enough north for white nights (or nearly?)"That hadn't occurred to me. This is Denmark, so they are certainly far enough north to experience white ..."
Elizabeth wrote: "As a chicken owner, I have to say: roosters do not crow at dawn; they crow from about one a.m. on."Too true! My neighbor in Queens had quite the zoo in their apartment -- including a rooster. That thing would start going at 2:30 am. Just about the time I would be coming home from, er, 'meetings'.
I recall reading something, somewhere -- perhaps some of the Contexts material in the Norton Critical -- which said that medieval monks had four prayer times: midnight, cockcrow, dawn, and noon.
is the Ghost real? Is it not his father, but a demon? The ambiguity in the way the Ghost speaks to him introduces this theme.
Indeed, and even Hamlet is suspicious. He is determined to ascertain the guilt of Claudius before putting any plans in action -- he does not want to damn his immortal soul by unwittingly doing a devil's bidding.
One of the most intriguing bits about the ghost is that it is visible to others, but only in the first act. There is no evidence that anyone but Hamlet ever hears it speak: Horatio and Marcellus are pointedly unresponsive the the ghost's orders to 'Swear!'.
Last night, I was thinking a bit about how the source didn't have a ghost, and why Shakespeare would add it. In the source text, Hamlet (Amleth) knows from the start that his uncle is guilty; he feigns dim-wittedness to not be killed, and sets up a plot to kills his uncle and the court. In other words, Hamlet is a cold and calculating murderer who gets revenge and wins back the throne.
Shakespeare seems to have wanted to make Hamlet more complicated: a sensitive type who has the burden of revenge thrust upon him. In order for this to happen, Hamlet has to be ignorant of his uncle's crime, and have the knowledge revealed to him.
The reveal could be from his mother, but that complicates things as she is more or less counted among his enemies. Why not use that old dramatic staple, the omniscient ghost? And that introduces ambiguity! Win-win!
Just cracking into the first act and finished the first couple of scenes. Ready enjoying this so far. I'm a Shakespeare novice and ready appreciate all of the insight and knowledge you have shared. It's much easier reading this now rather than when it was forced on me in high school.
Justin wrote: "It's much easier reading this now rather than when it was forced on me in high school. "Others may disagree with me on this, but I think the best way to approach Shakespeare is to understand that it is written as if you already know the story, and are just here to enjoy how Shakespeare tells it.
This is not too far-fetched, given that the story of many of Shakespeare's plays will have been familiar to the audience of the time from other plays (or from national history). Even plays like Hamlet, which may not have a well-known story, will be similar in many respects to plays that were popular at the time (e.g. The Spanish Tragedy, by Kyd).
The way Shakespeare it often taught, unfortunately, is the opposite: you slog through it and then discuss what little of the play you could make sense of.
So yeah, have fun with it -- and I'm glad you're enjoying it. It's a very rewarding play.
Mod
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I love Hamlet and I am looking forward to reading it again. Also, I am intending to rent/buy some excellent movies so as to see it somewhat as it was meant to be experienced. The comments here have already illuminated things I didn't see before.Did the original audience have any doubts about the ghost's reality? The guards see it, too.
Mod
I don't think there is any real doubt about the ghost's existence. Without the ghost, there would be no play. Some people have questioned whether or not the ghost spoke to Hamlet, because in the text, he speaks to no other characters - the implication being that maybe Hamlet has lost his mind and imagines the ghost's words. For me, that argument seems irrelevant.
Ghosts were pretty much a staple of 16-century revenge tragedies, so the original audience would not have doubted its reality.The fact that the ghost is not visible to Gertrude in Act III has led some to believe that later appearances of the ghost are delusional, and symptoms of Hamlet's madness. The Hoy edition of the Norton Critical includes a period essay on spirits, how they don't truly exist, and how sufferers of melancholia often "see ghosts" as part of their distemper. Hoy included this source (I don't have the book with me, so I'll have to update with the details another time) to demonstrate that Shakespeare could have been familiar with the notion that ghosts are a symptom of melancholia, and incorporated it into his play.
It makes no difference to the play whether the ghost is only heard by Hamlet, or whether later appearances of the ghost are delusional -- the first appearance of the ghost is real, therefore the ghost is real.
UPDATE: The source in Hoy was Lewes Lavater: Of Ghosts and Spirits Walking by Night 1572. A summary of this and other period works on ghosts can be found here.
Important: While it is not a strict requirement, many members will be reading the Second Quarto version of the play. Most editions will specify which version they’ve used. This becomes important especially if your edition is based on the First Quarto, which is significantly different from the Second Quarto and First Folio editions.