The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1896 Wednesday, 16 November 2005
[Editor's Note: Further discussion of this topic should be conducted off
list between those who are interested.]
[1] From: Jim Blackie <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 15 Nov 2005 12:16:47 -0800 (PST)
Subj: Re: 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: Wednesday, 16 Nov 2005 08:27:11 +0800
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1886 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Blackie <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 15 Nov 2005 12:16:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
From: Kenneth Chan " ...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."
I think this leads us around the barn one more time, never settling on
or agreeing upon a satisfactory answer for all. It is my belief that in
Hamlet we are never really sure of anything as it pertains to the ghost.
The best we can do is to try examining alternatives.
The ghost calls from the cellarage - meaning he is:
1) a demon (living in hell), or
2) just playing one, (as they say in commercials) and, as suggested by
Dover Wilson as a possible reason for the "ventriloquism," the motive is
scaring the pants off the soldier Marcellus who would think he was
swearing to a demon, or
3) a (Catholic) soul in purgatory in a process of having his sins burned
from him, or
4) an hallucination.
We can remove #4 as "unreasonable" or even silly
We can reason that if #3, then the spirit, while having his sins burned
from him (very Catholic and not conformant to Protestant Elizabethan
society) INCITES another sin to be committed by his very own son - this
is equally illogical or unreasonable
We can perhaps agree to #2, but that only argues what the ghost is
pretending to be, rather than what it is
We can accept #1 as reasonable, for though the ghost knows much about
the dead king's life and actions related to the crime, surely a "demon"
would have that same knowledge (we have, some of us at least, seen "The
Exorcist" with similar notions explored ; ) )
So while #1 cannot be proved the intended or only solution, I'll be
damn'd (no pun intended. Well, actually it was) if I can figure any
other that works.
If we accept #2, we still have the idea that "something" is pretending
to be something else. Perhaps that is all we need to know.
My uncertainty on this is what drives me back again and again and again
to find something new. I keep thinking it has something to do with the
perception of life after death with Catholicism contrasted against
Protestantism, but I can not get any further along with this. My brain
is probably just not up to it. Then again, maybe WS never wanted logic
used when viewing his play onstage, no? The Play's the thing.
Jim Blackie
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Chan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 16 Nov 2005 08:27:11 +0800
Subject: 16.1886 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1886 Hamlet: Revenge or Justice?
Bill Arnold writes:
> "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, ..."
Hamlet is a play centered on the problem of revenge. The question it
poses is not the question of Claudius's guilt. The question the play
poses is really this: Given that Claudius is guilty (he definitely is),
is revenge the correct course of action to take? In other words, is it
correct for us to take justice into our own hands?
Bill Arnold cites the Bible numerous times, but completely omits that
fact that Jesus repeatedly spoke against taking revenge into our own
hands. Thus the Bible cannot be used as justification for claiming that
the play supports the act of revenge. As Jesus says: "Let he who is
without sin cast the first stone." Hamlet himself actually echoes this
sentiment: "Use every man after his desert, and who shall escape whipping?"
If we interpret Hamlet in its entirety, and not just selected portions
of it, it is clear that the play portrays the error of revenge. What
makes Hamlet invaluable as a message for humanity, however, is that the
play not only tells us that revenge is wrong, it also tells us why.
The entire play is meticulously crafted for this purpose. Every part of
it fits. We must refrain from perpetuating the error of assuming that
Shakespeare's plays have no intended meaning, and thus refrain from
using this wrong assumption to justify the practice of basing our
interpretations on only selected portions of his plays, while omitting
other large portions that do not fit in with our interpretation.
It is time we acknowledge the incredible depth of Shakespeare's genius
in carefully crafting his plays as deep messages for the betterment of
humanity.
With best wishes,
Kenneth Chan
http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
