The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1886 Tuesday, 15 November 2005
[1] From: Kenneth Chan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 15 Nov 2005 01:04:37 +0800
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1876 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
[2] From: Edmund Taft <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 14 Nov 2005 12:07:09 -0500
Subj: Hamlet: Revenge or Justice
[3] From: Kenneth Chan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 15 Nov 2005 01:37:40 +0800
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1876 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
[4] From: Bill Arnold <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 14 Nov 2005 13:06:51 -0800 (PST)
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1876 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Chan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 15 Nov 2005 01:04:37 +0800
Subject: 16.1876 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1876 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
John-Paul Spiro writes:
>"Does Shakespeare say that the ghost is an "erring spirit"? I
>was under the impression that Horatio says that, not Shakespeare.
>And I recall that Hamlet says something about Horatio not
>knowing everything...though that's just Hamlet talking--again,
>not Shakespeare."
I am well aware that what Shakespeare's characters say need not
represent Shakespeare's own feelings about the matter. The point I am
trying to make has nothing to do with that.
The point is really this: If the play is about "a divine call to correct
an injustice", as Bill Arnold suggests, why then would Shakespeare
repeatedly make the suggestion to the audience that the messenger of
this "divine" call (i.e. the ghost) may be anything but divine?
If this suggestion is made only once, we may pass it off as a chance
occurrence. This, however, is not the case. The suggestion is made many
times, and the ghost himself also informs us that he is no angel.
Furthermore, in case we still miss the point, Shakespeare drives home
this impression (i.e. the dubious nature of the ghost) by making the
ghost cry out repeatedly from below (the traditional location of hell)
during the eerie swearing ritual.
Shakespeare typically repeats his important points many times in his
plays. It is really time we acknowledge that Shakespeare does
meticulously craft his plays for a purpose. What he is trying to tell us
here is that this call for revenge is anything but divine. Further
evidence that this is the case resides in the fact that the rest of the
play completely, and perfectly, fits in with this meaning.
With best wishes,
Kenneth Chan
http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edmund Taft <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 14 Nov 2005 12:07:09 -0500
Subject: Hamlet: Revenge or Justice
Don Bloom writes: "If [Ed Taft] means what he seems to mean, it simply
does not square with reality. People commit acts of revenge with malice
aforethought all the time-planning and enacting them with great (and
sometimes gleeful) care."
I meant every syllable of what I wrote. Don confuses the planning of
revenge with the act itself: the act itself is always one of pure,
unthinking aggression: it has to be, logically. Only blood and violence
drive the brain during the act itself, even if the actor appears calm.
The killing of Polonius is the "ding an sich," the pure act, with no
forethought, and Shakespeare portrays it exactly that way. Especially
during the Renaissance, the actor has to "forget" the Renaissance
commonplace that "revenge recoils against the revenger."
As for Iraq - well, surely that's another time and another matter.
Ed Taft
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Chan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 15 Nov 2005 01:37:40 +0800
Subject: 16.1876 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1876 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Bill Arnold writes:
>"What both do is focus on the protagonist Prince Hamlet and,
>with a broad and erred brush, ignore the antagonist King Claudius
>who CREATED the PREMISE that the play begins with and is
>only RESOLVED with the latter's death at the hands of the
>protagonist, and judge and jury and executioner of justice: Prince
>Hamlet. Classic! I love it."
This seems far too simple an interpretation of Hamlet. It assumes that
Hamlet is merely another common revenge story. If this were the case,
there would surely not have been so much debate about the play over the
centuries. There are just too many problems with interpreting Hamlet in
this way.
For a start, if Hamlet is judge, jury, and executioner of justice, why
did he dispatch Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their death? Is that an
act of justice? Also, why did Hamlet delay his "act of justice" against
Claudius, and why did Shakespeare highlight this point?
Regards,
Kenneth Chan
http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Arnold <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 14 Nov 2005 13:06:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 16.1876 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1876 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
John Paul Spiro writes, "Does Shakespeare say that the ghost is an
'erring spirit'? I was under the impression that Horatio says that, not
Shakespeare. And I recall that Hamlet says something about Horatio not
knowing everything...though that's just Hamlet talking-again, not
Shakespeare."
All good points! And to add to the fire, these logs created from the
play itself:
(a) In response to Horatio challenging the Immortal Truth of the Spirit
of King Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV, Lines 64-67, Prince Hamlet says:
"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?"
Given that the audience was English, Christian, 1600, this speaks to the
Belief that the Soul is Immortal and that the Spirit of his father is
same as the Spirit of himself, one Beyond the Body and the other yet
Within. For Prince Hamlet invokes not swearing lightly False Truth,
invoking oaths upon the Catholic Sainthood, alleging he speaks Truth,
when he says, Act One, Scene 5, Lines 136-138: "Yes, by Saint Patrick,
but there is, Horatio, And much offence too. Touching this vision here,
It is an honest ghost, that let me tell you:"
(b) Inasmuch as Act One IS the Premise, Marcellus speaks to it, when,
having witnessed the Spirit of King Hamlet, Scene IV, Lines 89-90:
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
Given that the Spirit seeks Revenge and Prince Hamlet questions an
immediate response of such, and his Thinking Actions throughout the play
support that, we seek to establish that the Premise is One of Justice
and Not of Revenge, as Prince Hamlet notes, *appropriately* as the LAST
WORDS of Act One, Scene V, Lines 189-190, saying: "The time is out of
joint: O cursed spite, That ever I was born to set it right!"
This statement of Prince Hamlet, bracketing the End of Act One with the
Opening line of "Who's there?" and the entrance before the guards and
Hortatio and Prince Hamlet, is *the* Spirit of Truth, fortold in the
Christian Bible, the Bible of the author, Shakespeare, from the words of
Jesus in John, C 16, 8 and 11 and 13: 8 "And when he is come, he will
reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:" 11 "Of
judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." 13 "Howbeit, when
he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for
he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, *that*
shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
Thus, when things that Come To Pass actually bear out the Spirit of
Truth, it is so Writ, which was and IS the point of the words of of
Jesus; once again, the Master of the Faith of the Audience!
Given, in Act III, Scene III, when King Claudius fesses up to the Spirit
of Truth, Before The Christian Audience, his crime of murder of his
brother King Hamlet and Resolves the Premise that he was guilty, leaving
No Doubt with the audience, and us as readers of the text, and that only
Prince Hamlet can Restore Denmark to his Rightful State because only he
was "born to set it right!," we note Claudius saying, Lines 36-38:
"O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven;
It hath the primal eldest curse upon 't,
A brother's murder. Pray can I not...."
Noted that from the Old Testament story of Cain and Abel to the Spirit
of Truth of the New Testament, and the words of Jesus, we adjure that
Justice was and IS the final aim of Prince Hamlet who acts it out in Act
Five. He accepted that his Acts were possibly Acts of Sin in accordance
to The Scripture, But his Acts were of Righteousness, and his final
Judgment would be up to the Spirit of Truth as per the Bible of the
Christian Audience of Shakespeare's Age.
Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
