Shake A Spear Against William
Even though I've been diligently reading Huxley's Island for the sake of my presentation on Gunesekera's novel Reef, I did stop briefly to talk on the phone with Vivian. Somehow when we were talking about her essay for Modern Drama, making the distinction between illusions and apparitions in Pinter's The Homecoming and Genet's The Balcony, I tried to make a point of comparison to the issue of the ghost in Hamlet for whatever reason. Then Vivian offered in response the suggestion that I should investigate the episode of Saul summoning the spirit of Samuel with the Witch of Endor (1 Sam 28:3-25) for my essay.
Duh! How could I forget? The same issues surround this episode in the Nevi'im (The Prophets--its proper name instead of the derogatory term 'Old Testament'), specifically the First Book of Samuel. It got me thinking about my Shakespeare essay again, so I stopped working on my presentation for South Asian Literature and delved back in to Hamlet. When I looked over Act 1 Scene 5 a few things dawned on me. I was wrong when in said in an earlier post that the Ghost could be Adam. No, the thing I realized is that the ghost speaks in analogies (biblical comparisons to Adam and Eve and the Fall) and there's a reason for it. He tells Hamlet, starting in line 15, how "I could a tale unfold whose lightest word / Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, / Make thy two eyes like stars start from their spheres [...]" and et cetera. While I can honestly say I do not completely understand the image he is trying to show with the phrase 'like stars start from their spheres' (referring to the motion of the stars? as in spinning out of control or in a tizzy?) The image of his hair standing on end like a porcupine reminds me of the typical image of a horrified, blood-curdling screaming victim just before they die. Regardless of exactly what this meant the next lines made sense to me: "But this eternal blazon must not be / To ears of flesh and blood. List, Hamlet, list, O list! / If thou didst ever thy dear father love - [...] Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder. (ll.21-23, 25). It reminded me of how few people in the Bible see God as His divine brightness would kill them or burn them to a crisp, unless blessed or protected by Him. The word 'blazon' caught my attention because the editor's footnote said it meant 'catalogue or display of the afterlife's mysteries' - but I have read enough medieval English literature to know that a blazon is something else, too, which the OED helped me remember. It can also refer to a 'coat of arms' or a 'shield with heraldry'--quite interesting in a play so very POLITICAL and about FAMILY that this should come up. So blazon could mean (1) catalogue or display of the afterlife's mysteries (2) a shield used in war (3) a shield bearing a coat of arms (family/regal crest/heraldry) meaning a clear marker (related to him asking to 'Mark me' perhaps? to identify who the ghost is. I started plugging in these meanings and it could mean several potential things: The words 'secrets' is the word that makes this passage hard to interpret - because is he referring to the prison-house as a setting or his crime (1) The ghost insists that mortal ears (like eyes) cannot bear the raw supernatural word (of Hell or Purgatory--which one? something to consider) (2) The ghost cannot directly reveal the mysteries of the afterlife or where he came from - as indicated earlier when he says "But that I am forbid / To tell the secrets of my prison-house" which means that it's not Heaven where he is. (3) He can't LITERALLY describe the tale but he can tell it in CRYPT (in cryptic, figurative language) - which ties in to Paolucci's story of Walsingham the famous spy of England who invented an 'encryption' that still cannot be cracked ! (4) The truth of the matter--the real event--could make your blood curdle because it is so shocking ! (the news is like a scary ghost?).
So at this point in the speech, I now begin to wonder IS the ghost starting to speak in crypt? or comparisons as he does in the next speech. For example, he draws a comparison: "'Tis given out that, sleeping in mine orchard, / A serpent stung me. So the whole ear of Denmark / Is by a forged process of my death / Rankly abused" (35-38). The thing that tipped me off was the word 'so' - a transitional word often used to illustrate comparison (yes, I looked it up the OED just to be sure). I've noticed in the ghost's speech that whenever he ceases using biblical stories/tropes he follows up with 'so' and mention of Denmark. Is that a fair observation? I think so. As he says earlier, the ghost cannot DIRECTLY tell Hamlet the truth but he can illustrate it in cryptic language (metaphors, analogies, allegories, etc). So this can mean that the ghost meant earlier that he would have to use a familiar language or set of stories to reveal the truth, as Lavinia has to point to a book of Greek myths to expose her rapists in Titus Andronicus.
I could write a whole book on this topic, couldn't I? Regardless, it is interesting how the ghost uses biblical language and tales in speaking with Hamlet. One last point I thought worth noting is the potential things the Ghost could be egging Hamlet on to by the end of his speech: not to be sinful like Adam and Eve OR the rest of Denmark, set an example, be an enlightened Christ-like ruler, show mercy, learn from the ghost's example. There's too much to consider ! Damn you Shakespeare!
ADDENDUM: I forgot to mention my hairbrained, but plausible theory that Hamlet is not a 'hero' as most slants assume but rather a 'questionable' 'villain' aspiring for power. I remember Paolucci mentioning it in lecture, but for the life of me I can't remember where in the play Hamlet confesses that he is power-hungry for the throne--and bumping off Claudius is part of the scheme. But the speech that made me consider this idea comes after Hamlet speaks to the ghost: "My tables, / My tables--met it is I set it down / That one may smile and smile and be a villain. / At least I'm sure it may be so in Denmark." (ll.107-110). Of course 'tables' takes on a few meanings: earlier Hamlet refers to the 'table of my memory', as a brain that's taken note of all past theories, etc. and he says how he'll make a clean slate with only the ghost's commandment left. Is Hamlet 'setting down' that he will 'smile and be a villain', something he says is easy in Denmark. Why is it easy? Because no one knows what he knows--what the ghost supposedly told him--so no one will "see it coming" (it reminds me of the figure of 'Fortune' playing 'chess' in Chaucer's The Book of the Duchess). Or I could be misinterpreting it, and Hamlet is just acknowledging that Denmark is so corrupt. But Hamlet is playing so many people for fools, including the audience for most of the play. Something to consider...
Duh! How could I forget? The same issues surround this episode in the Nevi'im (The Prophets--its proper name instead of the derogatory term 'Old Testament'), specifically the First Book of Samuel. It got me thinking about my Shakespeare essay again, so I stopped working on my presentation for South Asian Literature and delved back in to Hamlet. When I looked over Act 1 Scene 5 a few things dawned on me. I was wrong when in said in an earlier post that the Ghost could be Adam. No, the thing I realized is that the ghost speaks in analogies (biblical comparisons to Adam and Eve and the Fall) and there's a reason for it. He tells Hamlet, starting in line 15, how "I could a tale unfold whose lightest word / Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, / Make thy two eyes like stars start from their spheres [...]" and et cetera. While I can honestly say I do not completely understand the image he is trying to show with the phrase 'like stars start from their spheres' (referring to the motion of the stars? as in spinning out of control or in a tizzy?) The image of his hair standing on end like a porcupine reminds me of the typical image of a horrified, blood-curdling screaming victim just before they die. Regardless of exactly what this meant the next lines made sense to me: "But this eternal blazon must not be / To ears of flesh and blood. List, Hamlet, list, O list! / If thou didst ever thy dear father love - [...] Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder. (ll.21-23, 25). It reminded me of how few people in the Bible see God as His divine brightness would kill them or burn them to a crisp, unless blessed or protected by Him. The word 'blazon' caught my attention because the editor's footnote said it meant 'catalogue or display of the afterlife's mysteries' - but I have read enough medieval English literature to know that a blazon is something else, too, which the OED helped me remember. It can also refer to a 'coat of arms' or a 'shield with heraldry'--quite interesting in a play so very POLITICAL and about FAMILY that this should come up. So blazon could mean (1) catalogue or display of the afterlife's mysteries (2) a shield used in war (3) a shield bearing a coat of arms (family/regal crest/heraldry) meaning a clear marker (related to him asking to 'Mark me' perhaps? to identify who the ghost is. I started plugging in these meanings and it could mean several potential things: The words 'secrets' is the word that makes this passage hard to interpret - because is he referring to the prison-house as a setting or his crime (1) The ghost insists that mortal ears (like eyes) cannot bear the raw supernatural word (of Hell or Purgatory--which one? something to consider) (2) The ghost cannot directly reveal the mysteries of the afterlife or where he came from - as indicated earlier when he says "But that I am forbid / To tell the secrets of my prison-house" which means that it's not Heaven where he is. (3) He can't LITERALLY describe the tale but he can tell it in CRYPT (in cryptic, figurative language) - which ties in to Paolucci's story of Walsingham the famous spy of England who invented an 'encryption' that still cannot be cracked ! (4) The truth of the matter--the real event--could make your blood curdle because it is so shocking ! (the news is like a scary ghost?).
So at this point in the speech, I now begin to wonder IS the ghost starting to speak in crypt? or comparisons as he does in the next speech. For example, he draws a comparison: "'Tis given out that, sleeping in mine orchard, / A serpent stung me. So the whole ear of Denmark / Is by a forged process of my death / Rankly abused" (35-38). The thing that tipped me off was the word 'so' - a transitional word often used to illustrate comparison (yes, I looked it up the OED just to be sure). I've noticed in the ghost's speech that whenever he ceases using biblical stories/tropes he follows up with 'so' and mention of Denmark. Is that a fair observation? I think so. As he says earlier, the ghost cannot DIRECTLY tell Hamlet the truth but he can illustrate it in cryptic language (metaphors, analogies, allegories, etc). So this can mean that the ghost meant earlier that he would have to use a familiar language or set of stories to reveal the truth, as Lavinia has to point to a book of Greek myths to expose her rapists in Titus Andronicus.
I could write a whole book on this topic, couldn't I? Regardless, it is interesting how the ghost uses biblical language and tales in speaking with Hamlet. One last point I thought worth noting is the potential things the Ghost could be egging Hamlet on to by the end of his speech: not to be sinful like Adam and Eve OR the rest of Denmark, set an example, be an enlightened Christ-like ruler, show mercy, learn from the ghost's example. There's too much to consider ! Damn you Shakespeare!
ADDENDUM: I forgot to mention my hairbrained, but plausible theory that Hamlet is not a 'hero' as most slants assume but rather a 'questionable' 'villain' aspiring for power. I remember Paolucci mentioning it in lecture, but for the life of me I can't remember where in the play Hamlet confesses that he is power-hungry for the throne--and bumping off Claudius is part of the scheme. But the speech that made me consider this idea comes after Hamlet speaks to the ghost: "My tables, / My tables--met it is I set it down / That one may smile and smile and be a villain. / At least I'm sure it may be so in Denmark." (ll.107-110). Of course 'tables' takes on a few meanings: earlier Hamlet refers to the 'table of my memory', as a brain that's taken note of all past theories, etc. and he says how he'll make a clean slate with only the ghost's commandment left. Is Hamlet 'setting down' that he will 'smile and be a villain', something he says is easy in Denmark. Why is it easy? Because no one knows what he knows--what the ghost supposedly told him--so no one will "see it coming" (it reminds me of the figure of 'Fortune' playing 'chess' in Chaucer's The Book of the Duchess). Or I could be misinterpreting it, and Hamlet is just acknowledging that Denmark is so corrupt. But Hamlet is playing so many people for fools, including the audience for most of the play. Something to consider...
posted by Davyth | 1:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home