Part 20: Ophelia and the Mousetrap of her Family’s Protectiveness
Shakespeare makes a mousetrap for the audience regarding Ophelia’s family and Hamlet. We could call this mousetrap, “Much Ado About Ophelia Marrying Hamlet.”
Near the play’s end, Gertrude says in 5.1 that she’d rather have decorated Ophelia and Hamlet’s wedding bed with flowers than Ophelia’s grave. The Queen seems to have liked Ophelia and thought her a good match for her son.
Rewind to the start: After seeing the ghost, Horatio and the sentinels think so highly of Prince Hamlet that they report the sighting to him, and not to King Claudius or Polonius. [1]
In 1.2, Horatio calls Prince Hamlet “my lord,” presenting himself to his friend as “your servant ever.” Hamlet replies that he would “change those names” [2]: He’d rather be Horatio’s servant, and Horatio his lord. When Horatio and the sentinels speak of their duty to him, Hamlet would rather have them think of their mutual love.[3]
Shakespeare presents Hamlet as a prince who desires to serve, to love and to be loved, not lord it over others— a rare prince. Claudius and Gertrude complain that he is mourning his father too long, an insult to their new marriage, [4] but Hamlet values love that is more faithful than fickle.
In 1.3, Ophelia is lectured on chastity by her brother Laertes and her father Polonius. They are certain Hamlet is too far above her station: If he made to her “almost all the holy vows of heaven,” this was only to take advantage. Though she pushes back a bit, they prevail.
One could say Polonius usurps power that would be better left to Gertrude and Claudius: Unthinkable in Shakespeare’s time, that a key advisor to the throne would forbid his daughter to see the Prince and heir apparent after he had made vows to her. A prince can make vows to whomever he wishes (unless the key advisor is William Ceil?).[5]
Polonius thereby also usurps Ophelia’s agency, her power to decide for herself.
Modern audiences are caught in a mousetrap: Is Hamlet misjudged by Polonius and Laertes? Or is Hamlet a player, a knave, a sexual predator who would take advantage of Ophelia, a hypocrite for doing so after preaching about his mother’s unfaithfulness to the memory of his father?
Some brothers and fathers may remember and empathize with Polonius forbidding Ophelia access to Hamlet, but may forget Gertrude’s words and flowers at her grave.
So the play catches us in a mousetrap, tempting us to take the side of Hamlet as trustworthy and a good prince, or the sides of Laertes and Polonius as a good and trustworthy brother and father.
It is remarkable how, until Ophelia’s apparent madness, this mousetrap of men and their competing opinions overshadows—or drowns?—Ophelia.
NOTES:om the Folger Shakespeare Library online version of Shakespeare’s Hamlet: https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakesp-works/hamlet/read/
[1] 1.1.183-190:
HORATIO: Break we our watch up, and by my advice
Let us impart what we have seen tonight
Unto young Hamlet; for, upon my life,
This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him.
Do you consent we shall acquaint him with it
As needful in our loves, fitting our duty?
MARCELLUS: Let’s do ’t, I pray, and I this morning know
Where we shall find him most convenient.
[2] 1.2.167-169:
HAMLET: I am glad to see you well. Horatio—or I do forget myself!
HORATIO: The same, my lord, and your poor servant ever.
HAMLET: Sir, my good friend. I’ll change that name with you.
This echoes the emphasis by Jesus of the Gospels that those who lead must be servants of all, and also echoes the action of Jesus at the Last Supper, washing the feet of the disciples. See my previous blog post on this subject: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/04/hamlet-footwashing-maundy-thursday.html
[3] In 1.2, Claudius, Cornelius/Voltemand, Laertes, Marcellus, Bernardo and Horatio all speak of duty, some more than once, but Hamlet changes the topic from duty to mutual love:
1.2.275-276:
ALL Our duty to your Honor.
HAMLET: Your loves, as mine to you. Farewell.
[4] This may have created some cognitive dissonance for audience members who remembered tales of Henry VIII, Elizabeth’s father, and all of his affairs, divorces, and some wives executed.
Some audience members may have remembered the scandal of Catherine Parr and how, once the last wife of Henry VIII was widowed upon his death, she remarried an earlier sweetheart only six months after the death of her husband and king. Perhaps in contrast, Hamlet is presented as a prince who values and expects deep faithfulness in marriage, which would include a traditional period of mourning for at least a year after the death of a spouse before remarrying. Such a prince might be more inclined to be faithful in love: Unless a terrible hypocrite, one might expect him to honor his vows to Ophelia rather than use false vows to deceive her for sex.
[5] If people in Shakespeare's time saw Polonius as a parody of William Cecil, they may have been much less likely to sympathize with Polonius and Laertes as they meddled to stop a possible marriage between the prince and Ophelia: Many in England hoped Elizabeth would marry and produce an heir, but too much advisory overthink may have ruined that.
- Modern audiences usually have little sense of Polonius as a parody of Cecil, and little sense of how strange it would be for the top advisor to the throne to resist a marriage proposal by a prince to his daughter, so it's easier for us today to sympathize with Laertes and Polonius in their protectiveness about Ophelia.
- According to historian Hilaire Belloc, Wiliam Cecil was the de facto ruler of England during most of the reign of Elizabeth I (Wikipedia 10/24/2023). Cecil and other advisors had conflicting opinions on possible marriages for Elizabeth, and some of these (often very male?) opinions had the (intended? or unintended?) effect of sabotaging Elizabeth’s chances at marrying. In retrospect it is often assumed that Elizabeth did not want to marry and have her power as monarch diluted with obligations to a husband, but is the historical reality more complicated? Was Elizabeth’s agency compromised as much by advisors like Cecil, who discouraged one or another match, as it would have been if she had married?
- Modern audiences usually have little sense of Polonius as a parody of Cecil, and little sense of how strange it would be for the top advisor to the throne to resist a marriage proposal by a prince to his daughter, so it's easier for us today to sympathize with Laertes and Polonius in their protectiveness about Ophelia.
- According to historian Hilaire Belloc, Wiliam Cecil was the de facto ruler of England during most of the reign of Elizabeth I (Wikipedia 10/24/2023). Cecil and other advisors had conflicting opinions on possible marriages for Elizabeth, and some of these (often very male?) opinions had the (intended? or unintended?) effect of sabotaging Elizabeth’s chances at marrying. In retrospect it is often assumed that Elizabeth did not want to marry and have her power as monarch diluted with obligations to a husband, but is the historical reality more complicated? Was Elizabeth’s agency compromised as much by advisors like Cecil, who discouraged one or another match, as it would have been if she had married?
IMAGES:
LEFT: Vintage mousetrap image via Etsy, cropped. Fair use. https://i.etsystatic.com/8204506/r/il/55f82e/2330759958/il_570xN.2330759958_mclp.jpg
MIDDLE: St. Joseph making mousetraps (cropped/detail), c.1427-32, from altarpiece Annunciation Triptych, from the workshop of Robert Campin. Metropolitan Museum of Art. Public domain, via https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/470304
RIGHT: Vintage mousetrap image via DailyLiberal.com. cropped. Fair use. https://www.dailyliberal.com.au/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/Gcbb9hnc7SC3QLqZUqk8Kn/fcca0c4d-42ac-4cc2-b5bc-6112729af5cb.jpg/r10_0_1229_1724_w1240_h1754_fmax.jpg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INDEX OF OPHELIA POSTS:
My 2023 series on Ophelia, and earlier Ophelia posts:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2023/10/index-of-ophelia-posts-2023-series-and.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YOU CAN SUPPORT ME on a one-time "tip" basis on Ko-Fi:
https://ko-fi.com/pauladrianfried
IF YOU WOULD PREFER to support me on a REGULAR basis,
you may do so on Ko-Fi, or here on Patreon:
https://patreon.com/PaulAdrianFried
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 FOLLOWING.
To find the FOLLOW button, go to the home page: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/
see the = drop-down menu with three lines in the upper left.
From there you can click FOLLOW and see options.
Comments
Post a Comment