The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1866 Saturday, 12 November 2005
[1] From: Stephen Rose <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 10 Nov 2005 11:30:38 -0800
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1858 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
[2] From: Kenneth Chan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 11 Nov 2005 09:59:19 +0800
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1847 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
[3] From: Edmund Taft <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 11 Nov 2005 08:08:55 -0500
Subj: Hamlet: Revenge or Justice
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Rose <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 10 Nov 2005 11:30:38 -0800
Subject: 16.1858 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1858 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Tony's note has an enjoyable persuasiveness. Think about jumping to
conclusions. You are thinking one thing -- can't kill the sucker -- he
is praying. Hamlet is ready. Arras! Must be the king. The wish is father
to the thought. Jump and conclude. Normal human behavior. Cheers, S
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Chan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 11 Nov 2005 09:59:19 +0800
Subject: 16.1847 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1847 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Bill Arnold writes:
>"We start with: ACT ONE and a spirit telling Prince Hamlet of a
>deed which demands justice, divine justice as the dichotomy between
>the angels and the demons signifies. Some call what happens throughout
>the play other than how I see it: Prince Hamlet seeks justice. As a
>member of the Elizabethan audience, Christian, 1600, I am aware of an
>injustice crying out for justice. The *Spirit* declared it! Hamlet AND
>OTHERS saw and heard it."
If the play is about a divine call to correct an injustice, why is the
messenger of this "divine" call repeatedly portrayed by Shakespeare as
anything but divine?
Already in the opening scene, Shakespeare stresses that the ghost is an
"erring spirit" that has to hie to his confine upon the crowing of the
cock. In Scene 2, Shakespeare repeats the same point in Horatio's
narration of the event to Hamlet. And in Scene 5, Shakespeare reminds us
of this nature of the ghost yet again. The ghost's very first words
inform us that he is no angel, and hence that his counsel is suspect.
It is typical of Shakespeare to continually repeat his point and he does
this for a purpose. Hamlet is not a play about a divine call to correct
an injustice. It is a play centered on the problem of revenge and why
revenge is the wrong course of action.
If we view Hamlet in its entirety, and not omit any part of the play in
our interpretation, this point becomes very clear. What is crucial is
this: If we view Hamlet in this light, every single part of the play now
becomes relevant to the message. Everything fits. Shakespeare has
meticulously crafted every part of Hamlet for a very specific purpose.
The dubious nature of the ghost is only a small part of the complete
cohesive structure that stresses the error of revenge.
I have written an entire book on the evidence for this, so I won't
repeat myself here. Much of this evidence, however, is freely available
at http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod
Shakespeare's plays are all designed to impart deep messages for the
betterment of humanity. If we do not give due consideration to this
fact, we may fail to appreciate the priceless gift that Shakespeare has
left us. That would be a real tragedy.
With best wishes,
Kenneth Chan
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edmund Taft <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 11 Nov 2005 08:08:55 -0500
Subject: Hamlet: Revenge or Justice
>"From this perspective, it is not necessary to assume that Hamlet's
>customary good sense is overcome by passion and temporary loss of
>reason. Indeed if he were (and here is the problem caused by all the
>"agitation of mind" explanations), it would undercut an important
>feature of the chamber scene when, after the ghost reappears, Hamlet is
>forced to refute Gertrude's initial assumption that the specter which
>she does not see is a product of Hamlet's disordered mind."
Tony Burton suffers a momentary lapse from his customary good sense in
the passage above. There's no doubt that Hamlet acts first and thinks
afterwards in the slaying of Polonius. In fact, both Polonius and Hamlet
act on instinct, without thinking, the former by imprudently crying out
from behind the curtain, and the latter by giving no thought to what he
is doing: "How now? A rat? Dead for a ducat, dead!" (3.4.25). Polonius
acts out of fear and Hamlet responds with an act of pure aggression,
compounded by the stress of events. Neither one thinks - at all - which
is Shakespeare's point. Revenge, even when it misfires, MUST be an act
of pure, unthinking aggression, for no thinking person would carry it
out, given the inevitable consequences, both for the agressee and the
aggressor. Later in the scene, Hamlet tries to rationalize away what he
has done, claiming, with no evidence, that somehow he has acted out
God's Will. But this is pure baloney. He just can't face what he
actually did. He killed a man in hot blood - period. That's what he did.
Hamlet gathers himself later on and tries to convince Gertrude that he
is sane. But that doesn't change the fact that he was momentarily out of
control earlier when he killed Polonius. As the play progresses, these
"out-of-control" episodes increase: witness Hamlet's baiting of Laertes
at Ophelia's grave, or his taunting of the king by letter once he
returns from his ship voyage. Another uncontrollable impulse is
struggling to get free - and it does, at play's end, where Hamlet
finally kills the king in another towering fit of passion.
In short, revenge is the triumph of passion over everything else. That's
why, among other things, it is un-Christian, lawless, and self-damning.
Ed Taft
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
