Hamlet

Most of us know the basics of good ole William Shakespeare but I'll jot down a few:
Born in Stratford-upon-Avon and although the exact date of his birth isn't known, we tend to celebrate it on April 23. He married Anne Hathaway on November 27, 1582 and had several children. William Shakespeare is credited with creating many of the words we use today and transformed the world with his plays. Hamlet was written sometime in between 1599 and 1601. One Shakespeare's more famous works, Hamlet was criticized for different reasons depending on which century your point of view was born from. Late 17th century critics said it lacked decorum and unity while 18th century peoples applauded Hamlet as a hero. The earliest date of a performance of Hamlet is June of 1594, according to Philip Henslowe.

1. A recurring theme in Hamlet is inner sickness covered by a tough exterior. I realize this seems like a simple topic with an obvious answer but do you believe Hamlet's feigned insanity was (as it is named) false or was this a first glimpse of him finally having a mental meltdown? Was it a mix of both perhaps? Elaborate.

2. When Hamlet speaks to the players, Shakespeare feathers in some general rules on how to “act.” “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action. . . 'twere the mirror up to nature.” Essentially, don't speak on stage just to say a line. . . you must listen and react to every word, action, etc. Do you think this an appropriate approach to “acting” or do you believe there is a better way to understand the performance side of theater. If you agree with Shakespeare, please list a few reasons why. (personal examples, things you've read, etc)

3. Immensely popular in it's own time, Hamlet was viewed by all who enjoyed it and loathed it. Shakespeare drops some extremely funny shit in this play and I can understand why people who didn't like the show were offended. Take for example, the moment where everyone goes to see the play. Hamlet attempts to snuggle up next to Ophelia creating one of the funniest and raunchiest moments in the show.

Hamlet: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?

Ophelia: No, my Lord.

Hamlet: I mean, my head upon your lap?

Ophelia: Ay, my lord.

Hamlet: Do you think I meant COUNTry matters?

Ophelia: I think nothing my lord

Hamlet: That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.

See? Shakespeare was a riot! Any who, I'd really love for you guys to recall some other examples in the play where the bard slipped in some double meanings. Then, explain why these subtle phrases or quotes would have been considered offensive back in the day.

4. Out of the many times I've read this play, Polonius has always been my least favorite character albeit one moment. Polonius bestows up his son a few life lessons before Laertes departs. “This above all: to thine ownself be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.” Beautifully worded, this quote highlights one of the founding ideals of the play. If a quote stood out to you that could serve as another example of highlighting a major theme in the play, please share.

5. I'll be the first to admit that when I read Hamlet for the first time, I thought Ophelia was a crazy, hormonal woman that needed to take some pills. Even after I read Hamlet the third time and the fourth time, I couldn't get passed my initial perception of her character. I'll make light of this so it won't be super awkward, but last semester. . . I sort of went bat shit crazy(feel free to chuckle amongst yourselves). So many changes were happening all around me and it was too much. I tell you this to make a point, I promise. After going back through this play, I can in every way relate to Ophelia. She has had so much happen to her in such a short amount of time, it's no wonder she starts singing a song and throwing flowers around! In short, if there is a character in this play that you didn't connect with or didn't understand, or thought was completely bat shit crazy, I urge you to try again. Try to relate to that character with an open mind and, if need be, incorporate some personal experiences to help you. Now discuss. :)

6. I'm pretty sure that anyone who has ever read Hamlet in an English class addressed the issue of red hott mother/son lovin. . . and so shall we. Do you think their relationship was inappropriate or normal by seventeenth century standards? By our standards?

7. Overall, what messages can we interpret from William Shakespeare's Hamlet? There is no right or wrong answer to this one but really delve into what this play does (feelings it evokes, questions it raises, etc). If it helps, keep in mind how influential this work has been for the last few centuries. Why has it been so? What is so moving about this play compared to other writers of the 1600s (ish)? These questions should help you analyze Hamlet further. . . you don't have to formally answer all of them. :)

Hamlet, Day One.

Emily's post will be up by midnight tomorrow night - but since we had class today, I figured it would be a good idea to post something so that you could comment.

As kind of a prompt for these comments - and a prompt ideally that will be continued in Emily's discussion on Friday - I'd like to bring your attention to a passage from Peter Goldman's review of Stephen Greenblatt's book Hamlet in Purgatory.

In Hamlet in Purgatory, Greenblatt argues that the Ghost of Hamlet is not simply a plot device, a generic convention of the Elizabethan revenge tragedy, as sometimes assumed. Its power, both for the audience and for young Hamlet, goes far beyond its function as a plot catalyst. Rather the figure of the Ghost expresses (1) a widespread fear among the living of being forgotten after death and (2) bereavement for those already dead. The Ghost, in brief, inhabits the imaginative space left open by the English Reformation's banishment of Purgatory in 1563. The Ghost returns from Purgatory, and in effect brings Purgatory back with him, albeit in a fictionalized and thereby transformed shape. Shakespeare's Hamlet, as Greenblatt puts it, participates in "a cult of the dead" (203, 257), and we as readers and viewers continue this cult--one with important social functions that he explores at length. Only on this cultic basis can we account for Hamlet's powerful and continued fascination. The primary imperative of the Ghost is to "Remember," not to "Revenge," as commonly thought. In this sense, Greenblatt's interpretation shares common concerns with the readings of René Girard and Eric Gans, for both of whom also revenge is secondary to the refusal or delay of revenge. In Greenblatt's reading, the imperative for memory at the cost of revenge accounts for Hamlet's delay that has so puzzled critics over the centuries, as indeed Hamlet himself (in his soliloquies) is puzzled and frustrated by his lack of ready action. In this reading of the play, the problem is not delay but rather revenge itself: the Ghost does call out for revenge, and Hamlet eventually fulfills that requirement, if not, perhaps, in exactly the way envisioned by King Hamlet. The problem for Greenblatt's interpretation, as he puts it, is that "Sticking a sword into someone's body turns out to be a very tricky way of remembering the dead" (225). If the play is primarily an expression of the "desire to speak with the dead," and the fear, on the part of the living, of being forgotten after death, then how do we account for the elements of revenge at all? We cannot deny that the play, like all revenge tragedies, ends with a bloodbath. And at least part of the aesthetic experience of the play is the conventional anticipation of revenge. As Greenblatt observes, "Purgatory, along with theological language of communion (houseling), deathbed confession (appointment), and anointing (aneling), while compatible with a Christian (and, specifically, a Catholic) call for remembrance, is utterly incompatible with a Senecan call for vengeance" (237). Ghosts from Purgatory typically ask for prayers to hasten their way to Heaven. How, in other words, do we reconcile revenge and remembrance?

A few things to keep in mind about Shakespearean tragedy: although it is influenced by Greek tragedy, its more direct ancestor is found in ancient Rome, specifically in the works of Seneca.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca - a writer of the early Roman empire, contemporary and one-time tutor of Emperor Nero - is the author of 9 surviving plays. His plays, many of which deal with revenge, are the only extent examples of fabula crepidata (Roman adaptations of Greek tragedy). There is only one surviving example of a fabula praetexta (Tragedy set in Rome) - Octavia - and it was long attributed to Seneca, too: unfortunately, Seneca's appearance in the play as a character who is forced to commit suicide, an event that actually happened in Imperial Rome as depicted in the play, makes this authorship decidedly dubious.

Like the Greeks, Seneca had a chorus - although given the size of most Roman theatres, it is likely that the chorus was much smaller than those of Sophocles. The structure of the plays was largely the same, and, at least in the fabula crepidata largely stayed close to the Greek myths that inspired them; although Rome as an empire had Etruscan roots, its appropriation of Greek culture, religion, and literature is extremely important. Unlike in many of the surviving plays by Ancient Greeks, Senecan characters die on stage in extremely gruesome ways; frequently, the characters are used as mouthpieces for debates on Stoic philosophy. It's not unreasonable to say that Seneca is the most bad-ass ancient playwright - and his works are the Tragedies that were held up in the Renaissance (in both Italy and England) as the best of the ancient world, and the template upon which new tragedies should be built.

Although the structure of Hamlet is virtually unrecognizable as a Senecan tragedy (there is no chorus, and as such no Tragic structure featuring parados, stichomythia, and repeated agons), the subject matter and details of the plot - the supernatural element of the ghostly visitation, the desire for revenge at all costs, and the bloodsoaked finale - are all staples of Senecan drama. You won't see much of a linear descent from Oedipus to Hamlet, true - but if this was a year long course and we could read 50 plays, I promise you that a few works by Seneca would fill in the gaps between the Greeks and the English Renaissance.

So yeah, guys; that's all I got. This is the structure upon which Shakespeare was building. Use the Greenblatt quote above as a jumping off point for discussion.