Belief in Ghosts v. Blaming Hamlet's Madness
This past week, three sources came together to nudge me toward thinking in new ways about the ghost in Hamlet.
[Images: Left: Screen-shot of headline and Ian McKellen from Michael Billington article in The Guardian (see below). Fair use. Right: Michael Keaton in Beetlejuice, directed by Tim Burton, 1988, warner Brothers, image via IMDB. Fair use.]
The first was an article in The Guardian by critic Michael Billington regarding a new film called The Hamlet Within. It mentioned productions of the play that portray the ghost as an inner voice of Hamlet rather than the manifestation witnessed by the sentinels and Horatio in the opening scene.
The second was when Shobha Pawar sent a link to an excellent YouTube video by John Berger from the 1970s, about how our experience of art and of its meanings changes over time, especially after technological changes that allow mass replication of famous art images.
The third was a “Speaking of Shakespeare” video on Shakespeare and the reformation, in which Shakespeare scholar Thomas Dabbs interviews historian Alec Ryrie of Durham University. Ryrie mentions how, in Early Modern Europe, belief in ghosts was common, as was belief in purgatory.
It struck me, not only that the meaning of Hamlet has changed regarding our willingness to believe in ghosts, but also that the ways we adapt to our changed beliefs about ghosts may have given us a tendency to overemphasize Hamlet’s madness as the source of problems in Denmark, rather than to balance it with a sense of the crimes of Claudius.
In Shakespeare’s day, accusations of Claudius having an affair with Gertrude would have been viewed as grounds for beheading the queen and her lover (as happened with two wives of Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard; yet such beheadings are--gulp!--mostly a thing of the past). For Claudius to poison his brother (murder to usurp the throne) would be considered an even greater crime.
Many people today don’t believe in ghosts; we make fun of the idea with humorous films (like Beetlejuice, staring Michael Keaton), or we imagine and exaggerate the threat of ghosts in horror films with sophisticated special effects that far exceed what Shakespeare’s acting company could achieve on stage in the late 1590s or early 1600s.
But if we go the path of imagining the ghost as merely a figment of Hamlet’s imagination, then we risk blaming Prince Hamlet for the ills of Danish society and its royal court, a form of victim-blaming.
While the sentinels and Horatio also see the ghost, only the prince speaks with it, so Hamlet knows there is a danger that even Horatio and the sentinels may think he is mad, and that his madness is the problem. The sentinels may suspect foul play because of the hasty marriage, but we may suspect it less today than in Shakespeare’s time.
Shakespeare may not have believed in ghosts, but may have used the ghost to embody the idea that people and nations can be figuratively haunted by decisions of individuals or past monarchs.
Do you believe in ghosts? Real or figurative? What aspects of the meaning of Hamlet do you think have changed over time?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages or mention religion in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over another, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to explore how the Bible and religion influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.
The first was an article in The Guardian by critic Michael Billington regarding a new film called The Hamlet Within. It mentioned productions of the play that portray the ghost as an inner voice of Hamlet rather than the manifestation witnessed by the sentinels and Horatio in the opening scene.
The second was when Shobha Pawar sent a link to an excellent YouTube video by John Berger from the 1970s, about how our experience of art and of its meanings changes over time, especially after technological changes that allow mass replication of famous art images.
The third was a “Speaking of Shakespeare” video on Shakespeare and the reformation, in which Shakespeare scholar Thomas Dabbs interviews historian Alec Ryrie of Durham University. Ryrie mentions how, in Early Modern Europe, belief in ghosts was common, as was belief in purgatory.
It struck me, not only that the meaning of Hamlet has changed regarding our willingness to believe in ghosts, but also that the ways we adapt to our changed beliefs about ghosts may have given us a tendency to overemphasize Hamlet’s madness as the source of problems in Denmark, rather than to balance it with a sense of the crimes of Claudius.
In Shakespeare’s day, accusations of Claudius having an affair with Gertrude would have been viewed as grounds for beheading the queen and her lover (as happened with two wives of Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard; yet such beheadings are--gulp!--mostly a thing of the past). For Claudius to poison his brother (murder to usurp the throne) would be considered an even greater crime.
Many people today don’t believe in ghosts; we make fun of the idea with humorous films (like Beetlejuice, staring Michael Keaton), or we imagine and exaggerate the threat of ghosts in horror films with sophisticated special effects that far exceed what Shakespeare’s acting company could achieve on stage in the late 1590s or early 1600s.
But if we go the path of imagining the ghost as merely a figment of Hamlet’s imagination, then we risk blaming Prince Hamlet for the ills of Danish society and its royal court, a form of victim-blaming.
While the sentinels and Horatio also see the ghost, only the prince speaks with it, so Hamlet knows there is a danger that even Horatio and the sentinels may think he is mad, and that his madness is the problem. The sentinels may suspect foul play because of the hasty marriage, but we may suspect it less today than in Shakespeare’s time.
Shakespeare may not have believed in ghosts, but may have used the ghost to embody the idea that people and nations can be figuratively haunted by decisions of individuals or past monarchs.
Do you believe in ghosts? Real or figurative? What aspects of the meaning of Hamlet do you think have changed over time?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages or mention religion in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over another, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to explore how the Bible and religion influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.
Comments
Post a Comment