Lollygagging With Shakespeare

Even though I'm starting to write an assignment for my Medieval and Early Modern Europe class, I'm already thinking about my next Shakespeare assignment. For the Shakespeare essay we are required to examine critical articles and a book on a particular issue in a play. I am inclined to look into the issue of the ghost in Hamlet for two reasons: (1) no one seems to give a hoot about discussing it in tutorial (2) it intrigued me when I heard it come up in Viv's tutorial with Jeremy. The assignment involves discussing the various critic's positions then taking a position along this axis of criticism, to agree or not to agree, that is the question. In terms of selection, I've opted to focus on the scene of the ghost's speech to Hamlet where he says "I am thy father's spirit". It all started here. I remembered Jeremy's challenge that the ghost could be a malign demonic creature not a benevolent ghost of Hamlet Sr after I read the speech. Simultaneously, I thought of the connotations of these five words - that "spirit" could have multiple meanings - be it apparition, ghost, etc - and that "father's" could refer to a spiritual father (Jesus or Adam) or Hamlet Sr. In fact, once I finish writing this History essay I'll explain how I might argue that the ghost COULD be describing Adam, the forefather of Mankind. Perhaps it's a stretch, or maybe I'm on to something new. Ever since I sat in on Viv's Shakespeare class I've felt driven to challenge popular notions of texts (critics or pop culture) - to look at the plays as "naked texts" (for it's own sake, without the babbling of critics in the margins). I guess that makes me a Lollard (or a mere lollygagger), doesn't it?

So far I haven't been very fortunate in my search for articles and books exclusively on the issue of the ghost in Hamlet. I found a book by Stephen Greenblatt Hamlet In Purgatory that alleges to deal with this issue, but I am rather doubtful that it will help--I've heard enough bad things about Greenblatt. The other trouble I face is meeting the sole requiment stipulated by my tutorial leader: finding an article written after 1995. So far no luck. I've found one article written in 1961 by Miriam Joseph called Discerning the Ghost in Hamlet. From what I've read it seems somewhat credible. I am open to suggestions if anyone who reads this blog knows better.

Another issue I am wrestling with in my mind is that of the language used to describe the ghost. A lot of the vocabularly used to describe the ghost (fantasy, spirit, apparition?) came up in my study of Middle English dream visions from a century or two before Shakespeare. What I remember from Chaucer is that each word has a different connotation - words such as "ghost" or "spirit" or "apparition" and "fantasy" or "imagynacyon" has a distinct meaning derived from Aristotelian/Medieval notions of perception. Unfortunately I can't ask my tutorial leader for clarification as he has no background in Medieval literature. Perhaps I can ask my Religious Drama and Vision / Middle English teacher. She is quite the scholar, whereas my Shakespeare TA seems to know nothing of the Medieval period. Go figure. I suppose the only way to figure it out is to compare the usages of words to describe "fantastic" or ethereal objects and/or try plugging in the definitions provided in my Chaucer in to the Shakespeare play, and see if it fits.

ADDENDUM: I found an interesting one-page discussion by Lisa Hopkins called "Hell in 'Hamlet' and ''Tis Pity She's a Whore'," written in 1997. It's short but quite interesting.

Here is the essay I wrote last semester for those who wish to read another last-minute piece of work - another work much improved by Viv's terse editing. If you dare.