Brief let me be. Sleeping within my orchard,
My custom always of the afternoon,
Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole
With juice of cursed hebenon in a vial
And in the porches of my ears did pour
The leperous distilment, whose effect
Holds such an enmity with blood of man
That swift as quicksilver it courses through
The natural gates and alleys of the body,
And with a sudden vigour it doth posset
And curd, like eager droppings into milk,
The thin and wholesome blood.
In Shakespeare's Othello (written a year or two later) the evil Iago plots, in a soliloquy, to "pour pestilence into his [Othello's] ear" to infect Othello’s relationship with his young bride Desdemona. In this case, the poison is in the form of words.
Look back over Hamlet and consider all the times that one character pours poison into the ears of another. How do these infected words poison as lethally as Claudius's real poison?
32 comments:
It's not 2 AM and I'm posting? Katherine, add another tally to the doomsday calendar.
An implicit scene of poisoning is that of the Ghost speaking to Hamlet, "The serpent that did sting thy father's life/Now wears his crown." (I.v 38-39) These words from beyond are more lethal than any others, as they drive Hamlet close to the brink of madness, to hate his mother, the "most pernicious woman!/O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!" (I.v 105-106) Closely following this encounter, his "antic disposition" shows up in Ophelia's room, which in itself stirs suspicion in the young maiden's heart.
The second one that I think of is the play-within-the-play, where the play is poison to the ears of Claudius, who cannot stand to view his own murderous passions played upon the stage, and demands: "Give me sone light. Away!" as Hamlet ridicules him. (III.ii 242-245)
The last scene that comes to mind is of Hamlet and Ophelia with Polonius and Claudius eavesdropping. Hamlet questions Ophelia: "Ha, ha! are you honest?//Are you fair?" (III.i 103-105) He curses (I think? I don't understand it too well) Claudius with "Let the doors be shut upon him, that he may play the fool nowhere but in's own house." (III.i 130). Ophelia is upset and begs the "heavenly powers, restore him!" The poison which was spit from Hamlet's tongue causes a genuine grief in Ophelia for "O, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown!...And I of ladies most deject and wretched,/That sucked the honey of his musiced vows,/Now see that noble and most sovereign reason/Like sweet bells jangled, out of time and harsh;/That unmatched form and feature of blown youth/Blasted with ecstasy." (III.i 145-157) In a manner, his angered speech is more poison to himself than to any others, since this is where Claudius realizes "There's something in his soul/O'er which his melancholy sits on brood" (III.i 160).
All of these instances put together show his own undoing, caused by his ill will towards other, by means of avenging of his father. The ghost poisons Hamlet's soul, which (as observed by Claudius) is troubled and causes the distress in Ophelia's chamber. His troubled soul eventually wrecks Claudius' spirit when the play-within-a-play commences, and in the end, all hell breaks loose upon the royal house of Denmark.
Goodness Mr. Cornea, getting an early start on posting are we? I doubt I will be posting for at least another day or two, as I'm still feeling the slightest bit burnt out from those last few postings I made. However, I will provide some commentary on your post.
I agree that Hamlet's initial conversation with the Ghost is an instance of such verbal poisoning as worth mentioning. However, my interpretation of the poisoning differs from yours. The poison is in the revelation of Claudius' treachery, not in the resulting madness. If the Ghost's words were omitted, Hamlet would have been a very different play. Even if you retained Hamlet's bought of insanity, he has no purpose. I also wonder if Hamlet would have been inclined to take revenge if the Ghost had not asked it of him. More poison...
Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that the Ghost is the source of all the trouble. Certainly, Hamlet does his fair share of venomous verbalization, but only after the Ghost has his way with him. Even a tree with a thousand branches has but one trunk. Though Hamlet is the one going around thrusting swords into tapestries and running accusatory plays, he would not have done any of those things had the Ghost not suggested revenge or informed him of the circumstances of old Hamlet's death.
Now that I think about it though, you might use my own train of thinking against me, and argue that it was Hamlet who insisted upon following and speaking to the Ghost, or that it was the various watchmen who informed Hamlet that there was a ghost at all, or that had Claudius not committed murder, none of this would have happened at all. I'm not entirely sure where I was going with this any more, I think I started to ramble. In any case, the blame for the various tragedies which occur throughout the play rests in any number of places, depending on how you look at it.
Yeah, I'm going to go and collect my thoughts and post an actual response tomorrow or Monday.
Mr Putnam, I think the argument that you're making is a futile one in the form of "chicken or the egg".
I still choose to say that Hamlet did give out the most doses of poison. After all, he is the one who takes things so far. He could have committed a simple act of revenge by slitting the king's throat while he sleeps (while not noble, it would be a just punishment). Granted, it does add substance to the plot, and makes it quite a bit more intriguing, so we can't just say that Hamlet should have just done it and Shakespeare could have shortened the play to 10 pages.
Aaaand I really hate losing my train of though. I think I was going to say something about how Hamlet's prolonging of action makes his poison more "potent", and therefore more noticeable, even though other characters may have acted as catalysts.
I was going to point out in my previous post the ghost and the possibility that, if we allow the chance that it is a demon spirit, it could be what started all of this poison-spitting. Even if he isn't a demonic apparition, he still has a lot of influence (Hamlet wouldn't even know that his father was murdered).
On a side-note, anyone feel like going to a Combichrist/Black Light Burns concert in January?
These words aren't necessarily poison but the way Hamlet says it can almost be seen as such. At the end of Act 3 Scene 2 when he is alone, he tells himself "I will speak [daggers] to her [Gertrude], but use none..." Then when Hamlet is with his mother (in Act 3 Scene 4) and speaks such stinging words toward her, she painfully screams "O, speak to me no more! These words like daggers enter in my ears." The agony that is in her voice certainly appear like someone who is mortally wounded. However, the words are not sustained (for they are overcome) and thus the comparison yields to Claudius' poison as being much more potent.
Hamlet is a character who is good with words, he even states “I will speak daggers to her, but use none” (III.ii.366). He uses words but no action, and therefore naturally comes to mind when requested to find examples of words that are weapons in the play. After all it is his cruel words to Ophelia not necessarily his action that led to her suicide. And in regards to his fathers revenge, Hamlet combats Cladious verbally much more than physically. Looking for such examples in other characters is a bit more challenging. There is the deliverance of information from the ghost that preludes most of the drama, but i would disagree this is an example of words as weapons. When one uses a weapon it is something they directly attack with, the ghost speaks to Hamlet but he is not attacking him. It is not the words of the ghost that could lead to the revenge of Claudius, rather the words or actions of Hamlet. I think of the incident more of one where the ghost gives Hamlet the ammunition of knowledge that will lead him to make an attack. It seams to me there are many examples of verbal sparring amongst all of the characters, even when the queen is repeating the kings greetings to Rosecrans and Guildenstern reversed as a way of correcting him. But I cannot think of any specific times when characters use words as fatal weapons.
Obviously, the first person that comes to mind when thinking of this, as is for almost everyone else, is Hamlet. He is an extremely witty character whose words run like poison to ears of others. Hamlet carefully sculpts and molds his words into sharp piercing daggers, which are just a lethal as poison, and he uses this tool numerous times. It could be said that the entire story is about Hamlet precisely trimming his thoughts into penetrating and destructive words. On many accounts he is speaks harmfully to others such as his “goodbye” to Ophelia, or almost anytime he speaks to his mother, and especially to Claudius.
I believe that much of the same can be said for Polonius, although he is not as compelling as Hamlet, and Hamlet’s outlandish behaviors, Polonius does utilize the same form of words, which leads to quite noticeable turmoil. His shifty speech sways others, such as Claudius or Ophelia into thinking certain things or taking actions. Just as he persuades Claudius and Gertrude to send someone to see the reasoning as to Hamlet’s madness, which Polonius believes to be because of his daughter. No, Polonius is not as controversial and does not speak as many “poisoned” words as Hamlet, but I think that his words do have a significant affect on the interactions of characters and the plot of the play.
Hamlet is definitely the main person that's 'poisoning' people through words. To me Hamlet is kind of like a bully, picking fights with anyone that dares speak to him, and not the big tough bully, with huge muscles and a slight beard, he's more along the lines of the emo bully, that sulks in the corner waiting to lash out at someone.
Hamlet has quite a knack for words. Most of the time Hamlet is speaking to the other characters, he's kind of verbally poisoning them. He treats Ophelia badly even though she does nothing wrong, making her feel like its her fault, when really Hamlets just a emo creeper. Then he also treats Claudius and Gertrude pretty bad, but we can kind of expect that a little, right? I mean, Claudius killed his father and married his mother, so Hamlet can poison him with his words all he wants. But I think he's a little harsh on Gertrude since she's his mother. He never really physically fights with anyone, except that scene from the movie where he stabs Polonius, then wrestles with Gertrude, and somehow then ends up kissing her on the lips...which I thought was a little over the top, I still can't quit having nightmares about that.
When Hamlet is dishing out his 'poison words' to the other characters, like lunch ladies dish out mac and cheese, it kind of reminds me of the Jerry Springer/Steve Wilkos shows. Like where they get people on the stage and basically tell them how worthless they are. Anyone else think so too? ...No? Okay, I'll be quiet now.
My post has yet to arrive, but until then, I would like to make an assertion. While literal poison is more directly fatal, the duality that exists between the two forms must and does live past this simple fact. Just because the words are not a direct attack does in no way refute their poisonous nature; it should, if anything, strengthen the association therein. Poison is not an "attacking" device- it is sly, shifty and dangerous, characteristics that pervade the manipulative language so closely tied to literal poison.
I would like to take a look at Ophelia and her death because no one ever took physical actoin towards her yet she dies. The only weapons that are used against her are words. She is a victim of the cross fire though, the cross fire of words. Ophelia actually dies as a result.
Now I don't make Ophelia's death an accident or a coincidence. Shakespeare just didn't do that in his plays. Everything was crafted to continue the plot. I strongly believe Ophelia comitted suicide. There was so many things she was being told and so many mixed messages given from both Hamlet and her father that she resorted to such measures.
So if we are to find, and I know there are a lot of them so don't chastise me for not getting them all, fatal words that are used like poison, Ophelia is where they will be found the most easily.
From one of the first few times we meet Ophelia, she is told by both her brother and father to be very cautious of her love, Hamlet. Polonius says "affection? Pooh! You speak like a green girl... Think yourself a baby." Here he degrades his daughter in an effort to protect her, so she can be weary of the wiles of men (granted I would do the same with my sister). But what makes this confusing is just a few scenes after the one this one her dad, Polinius, tells her to do the very thing he just told her to avoid. He says "I'll loose my daughter to him." This is done because the king and Polinius himself want to see what Hamlet is up to. Ophelia is a confused pawn, and no consideration is given to her feelings. As a result the words of these men are left to brood within her mind.
Ophelia is pretty much oblivious to what is going on. All she knows is what is told to her. Hamlet really lays it on her in scene I of act III. This is when the king and Polonius are spying on Ophelia and Hamlet's conversation. He says "ha ha! Are you honest?" qustioning her chastity, and pretty much breaks up with her calling her ignorant, leaving really not much ground for reconcilliation when he is done with Claudius. Hamlet says to Ophelia "I say, we will have no moe marriages... To a nunnery, go." then Hamlet leaves Ophelia to sulk on what he just said. These are hurtful words to a girl like Ophelia, she isn't mature enough to be able to take it.
Now some would argue that it was purley the words doing the damage here, but I feel it is more than that, it is the interpretations and ways we mull over what was said, looking for that deeper meaning. Ophelia noticed it wasn't her normal Hamlet she was talking to. Reality was Hamlet was putting on his manic disposition, but that could easily be interpreted by Ophelia as something detrimental to her love life. Because of what was being said to her and because of the implications she made in her own mind, the words acted like poison, slowing killing her hopes dreams and character until she finally decided to end the pain in the easiest and fastest way possible-- suicide.
Thus it is shown that the words coupled with their personal interpretations can truly poison someone. The words themselves aren't what kill, they need this catylist of ambiguity and the mind's imagination.
Wow--"emo creeper". A whole new world of Hamlet is opening up for me. I think Scott and I should make a new Hamlet movie--but he should cast the show and select the soundtrack. It'll make a sensation (note to essayists: do not use that contraction or I will deduct 25 points from your score. Who said the world was fair?).
And to think that "Lethal Hamlet" gave someone nightmares! Good thing I didn't show the old black & white Hamlet--very big on the Freudian angle, if you know what I mean.
Alexander, that's a ten yard penalty for using "duality" in a blog comment. Such terms may only be used in a doctoral thesis. May I call you Doctor Albert Johnberry?
PS: What's all this got to do with poison in the ear? Am I missing something?
Just on a side note that Michael's post reminded me of...I believe that the serpent perhaps could be an allusion to the Biblical serpent from the Garden of Eden. The doubt it placed in Eve reminds me of poison whispered in her ear. Sorry that may have been off topic.
If one looks carefully at the words that Ophelia sings in her madness, one could conclude that the reason behind her affliction could stem from a poison concocted of Hamlet's words. She is thoroughly confused. One moment her professes undying love with "the very ecstasy of love" (II i 114). The next, Hamlet fervantly urges her never to marry only become a "breeder of sinners" (III i 132).
I'm going to make my best guess on the "so what" about the poison in the ear part of this blog. The reader sees through Hamlet that it is not the action taken that has the greatest effect. Lies and deceit may be more powerful. Every word he speaks is carefully crafted almost like a blade invisible yet cutting all the same. It reminds me the sayings, all wounds hurt but heal yet the ones that cut into the heart that hurt most.
It appears to me that Hamlet is the one who uses words as poison most often and most lethally. Sometimes his use of poisonous words is so subtle that one has to be paying close attention to catch his double meaning. However, at other times Hamlet rather bluntly states his poisoned words and there is no question about a double meaning. Hamlet seems to mostly direct his lethal words at his uncle, mother, Ophelia, and sometimes a few others.
While speaking with the king, Hamlet states, ‘A little more than kin and less than kind’ (I.ii 67). Hamlet is clearly not happy about his relationship to his uncle by this statement and when asked how he is doing Hamlet replies to the king, ‘Not so, my lord; I am too much in the sun’ (I.ii 69), giving a double meaning to sun/son. Later, when speaking with Ophelia during the play, Hamlet insults women in general when Ophelia says, ‘Tis brief, my lord’ and Hamlet responds with, ‘As woman’s love’ (III.ii 174-175). Although this remark is undoubtedly aimed at his mother, it’s still insulting. It also doesn’t help that he wasn’t being exactly gracious with her (Ophelia) not long before.
I surprised that so many people have been attacking Hamlet in this post. In my mind, Hamlet’s words, though potent and sharp as daggers, are not poison. His words have sting and tend to hurt those on the receiving end (especially Gertrude and Ophelia), but cannot be considered poison as they are not as Alex stated, “sly, shifty, and dangerous”. Poison has a connotation of a slow-acting, malicious and deadly assault, more suited to the creeping words of Claudius, than to the sharp witted and piercing words of Hamlet. When Hamlet rebukes and raves at his mother for committing “such an act that blurs the grace and blush of modesty,” he’s not slowing and maliciously poisoning her thoughts but outright attacking her. His words are weapons, but weapons cannot be confused with poison in this case. Similarly, when Hamlet banishes Ophelia with a “Get thee to a nunnery,” and utterly cuts open her heart, I cannot see it as poison but as merely verbal weapons. Hamlet’s personality and direct, though stalling approach to his goals does not give rise the creeping and malicious use of verbal poison but rather to direct stabs with a verbal sword.
As mentioned above, the first instance that leapt to my mind of a verbal poisoning was that of Claudius’ soothing and manipulative words to Laertes. In a rage over the death of his father, Laertes bursts into Claudius’ chamber with the intention to revenge his father then and there. He is entirely enraged and proclaims “conscience and grace to the profoundest pit!” He has no qualms about breaking his allegiance to the king, but rather than kill him then and there, Laertes soon falls victim to the king’s manipulative words. Claudius’ poison slowly works upon Laertes as he first flatters him with praises of his swordsmanship. Having procured a grip on Laertes, Claudius then sets out to reel him into his dishonorable plan of literal poison. Though it is Laertes himself that conceives of the idea to anoint his sword with “…an unction ofmountebank,” it was Claudius that first place the though in his head. Without Claudius’ soothing and sly word, I have no doubt that Laertes’ course of action would be a direct confrontation with Hamlet. Though Claudius’ verbal poison is not as lethal as literal poison, for all it does is drive Laertes to a dishonorable and despicable method, his actions are poison none the less.
Another incidence that I thought of but am not sure of, is the cause of Ophelia’s madness. I didn’t quite understand this part, but I believe Ophelia’s fall into insanity arose not only out of her father’s death and betrayal of Hamlet, but by the vicious rumors of the courtiers. Claudius, in interpretation of Ophelia’s madness, talks of “…the people muddied/thick and unwholesome in their thoughts and whispers”. Their vicious whisperings and gossip must have also played a part in the scatter of Ophelia’s wits. I just realized that it was also the words of “buzzers…with pestilent speeches of his father’s death” that poisoned and drove Laertes into a frenzy over his father’s death. (Though he would also have been able to achieve this raving status by himself; it’s just his personality.)
This post is actually hard to think about. There are so many thinks that I think could be "poison" but someone else wouldn't. The poison could be a character's actions toward another or one's angry comments to another or even just subtle little ways someone speaks (like Shea said).
One that stood out to me was Hamlet's silent meeting with Ophelia in her closet. It seems (seems madam? I know not 'seems'. (Hah!)) that Hamlet was conveying the message to Ophelia that he loved her but he couldn't do anything about it. Hamlet "poisoned" Ophelia by sending her a false hope almost. (confusing? It makes sense in my head!)
Another that I remembered was when Hamlet was commenting on how the prologue to the play within the play was short and when Ophelia replied he then said "As woman's love" (III.ii 174-175) . I am sure that this has been mentioned before but I didn't really read all of the posts but Hamlet directed this poison towards his mother to make her feel guilty about loving Claudius.
Hamlet is an amazing user of words and language. He can "poison one without the actual physical poison but through the manifestation of his words. WE see his verbal banter the way of his assault on people rather than attacking though physical means. Towards Ophelia he attacks her verbally leading to her own suicide. Hamlet did not kill Ophelia by his hands or any other physical action. We also see this verbal assault on Claudius from Hamlet, though that is probably well deserved. His words are his weapon that he uses. Words are more powerful than the physical damage; they can cause damage in a way that physical wounds could never. It is the ghosts words that lead to his verbal attack of Claudius. Not one of real poision but one of poision stemmed from his words and mind.
This blog reminds me of the nursery rhyme that starts “sticks and stones…”, but I feel that it connects in an opposite way. I think that most times words hurt more than any vile of poison or sword ever could, and that Hamlet is filled with these occurrences.
One of the poisonous instances that I thought of off the top of my head was the way Hamlet treated his mother. Gertrude loves Hamlet so much and knows him well (thus her understanding what was bothering him immediately). If Hamlet had been honest with her and not toyed with her feelings the way he does during his ‘insane’ moments, then I think that the ending of the story would have turned out quite differently.
Another poison that I thought of was the play within a play. This is a mixture of both actions and words that combine into a rather bad night for our King Claudius. In the play within a play he gets the chance to taste some of his own medicine ( or at least relive it being tasted by his brother). This play within a play changes the whole direction of Hamlet as Claudius discovers what Hamlet knows. It’s a poison for Claudius because he realizes he has been found out, and it is a poison for Hamlet because Claudius’ new plan to eliminate Hamlet ends up with Hamlet on his death bed.
Holy cow, have you guys read Michelle's post? It's so good! It makes total sense, Claudius being the one that is poisoning people's minds to doing the wrong thing.
It's funny because I'm just reading through the blogs and do you guys notice how many times the word "dagger" has been used? I mean, a lot of people are using the same part of the play to use as their example.
But I'm not saying anything because I don't have anything original to post up. What I would be saying is what you guys have been saying. Oo but everyone should read Michelle's post because you will be wowed.
You may, Mr. Duncan. Sorry, sometimes my eyes are bigger than my stomach with regard to expression.
In my blog I will explore the relationship between the ear of King Hamlet and the ear of Denmark, both victims to poison. but first, I must finish studying for the AP Chem exam.
TTFN
Throughout the play we see that Hamlet is a very witty guy. He disguises his hurt toward his mother and the rest of the world through his bitter sarcasm and biting words. Hamlet is a man who prefers attacking with his tongue rather than a sword. He is the one character in the play that “poisons” others the most with his words. Hamlet can make snide little comments that throttle the biggest bruise in one’s heart and he can also make long-winded statements that tear people’s self-esteem into shreds. For example, he makes a snide little comment to his mother when they are watching the play. Gertrude responds to Hamlet’s question about the play, “The lady protests too much, methinks” and he responds with “Oh, but she’ll keep her word”. The play that Hamlet constructed is a long story made with words in order to poison Claudius’ conscience along with his mother’s. He aims to make the actors exaggerate all the dialogues based on his beliefs of the sins of his father’s death. All the dialogues from the play constructed by Hamlet is made plain by his viewpoints, “the instances that second marriage move are base respects of thrift, but none of love. A second time I kill my husband dead when second husband kisses me in bed”. Hamlet’s words may not end life like Claudius’s poison, but his words can bring about the painful effects of the poison on people’s conscience and sense of self.
One possible example of word poison could relate to something not actually seen, but more implied. When the ghost is telling Hamlet of his murder, he says how his brother's "wit and gifts, that have the power so to seduce- won to his shameful lust the will of my most seeming virtuous queen" (act 1, scene 5, lines 51-53). The Ghost implies that Claudius won over Gertrude with words that sounded sweet and true, but were in fact a poison to seduce her to marry him.
Hamlet himself seems to poison some others with his words, in particular, Ophelia. He denies every having loved her, even though he wrote love letters and made many professions of his feelings for her. He basically says she a harlot and should "get thee to a nunnery" (act 3, scene 5, line 131). Ophelia genuinely believed Hamlet loved her and she eventually kills herself, believing Hamlet's love was all a facade.
Another example of poisoning is Hamlet's confrontation with his mother. He is quite cruel in making his point that she was far too lusty and was wrong in marrying Claudius. She is really upset by Hamlet's words, saying "speak no more!" more than once (act 3, scene 4, line 99). He really attacks his mother and does not spare really any kind words for her.
Wow. I could just read this blog all day. And JD getting into the fray? Holy cow.
Okay, enough is enough. You guys are rubbing off on me.
I think that not only does Hamlet poison others, but the words of the ghost are poison unto Hamlet. Hamlet has many kinds of poison at his disposal. He poisons Ophelia with the destructive acidity of scorned love. This destruction of the love of Hamlet's life is the result of the poison of the ghost on Hamlet. The ghost brings Hamlet's suspicions into the realm of reality, whereas before although he had suspicions he never acted upon them. No offense to the sanctity of the blog, but I see Hamlet as a carrier of the poison the ghost brings into being. His hostility towards Ophelia is brought about by his new determination and resolve. Claudius would have made a good king, but Hamlet cannot let his suspicions go away, which leads him to poisoning the court against Claudius with the play.
While considering the prevalence of 'verbal poison' in the play, I came to realize that those characters to engage in such malice all met ends equal in tragedy and malevolence to their intentions. In effect, those characters to spread poison were also those characters to BE poisoned, revealing a certain inevitability about spite, about hurt, that I found interesting. It made clear to me how none of us are truly immune to such poison, to such conduct, how none of us ought to engage in it for that reason.
Consider the character of Polonius. His disapproval of a relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia leads him to conceal himself behind the arras in Gertrude's closet and eavesdrop upon their confrontation, a decision that proves his undoing - had he not involved himself so unnecessarily in the prince's affairs, had he not unjustly intercepted a letter from the prince to Ophelia, had he not become so "wretched, rash, intruding" a fool (III, iv, 31), he would not be the man to collapse from behind that tapestry. He would be alive, he would be well. Had he not partaken in the poison he propagated, he might never have suffered as he did; he might never have been poisoned himself.
Hamlet is another excellent example of such demise of ideals, for it is only from the poison he spews so venomously at his mother and stepfather that he sickens, that he weakens - it is only because of the hurt those charges of incest and adultery cause, the tragedy that his preoccupation with revenge brings, that he leads himself to his own death. His poisoned wine is his words, his cruel accusations concerning his mother's "enseamed bed, stewed in corruption" (III, iv, 92-93). He does not need Claudius to provide it for him, for it is only he who pours his own glass, who drinks it unknowingly. He cannot escape the path upon which he has set himself, and, in the end, ends up alongside Polonius, as yet another ruined, dead royal turned sour by his misdeeds.
Through out the play there were many instances where this happened or had happened in the past. When Old Hamlet comes back as a ghost to tell Hamlet the truth of his death, the truth in a way poison Hamlet’s mind. Upon hearing the truth Hamlet takes actions that could be considered as righteous, but if he had never hear the truth, Hamlet might have lived a happy life, with nothing but grudges to hold against everyone. The truth causes the death of most everyone in the play, an event that would’ve not taken place if things had happened otherwise. Another victim whose mind is poisoned with words is Ophelia, upon hearing the words of her brother and her father she believes them even though they are not telling the truth. She does what she is told and stays away from Hamlet but she seems to remain sad and confused through the rest of the Play, which can be blamed on Polonius’s and Laertes’s advice. Both of these poisonings are lethal because they lead to the same circumstances that befell Othello, death to all.
I must admit, all the comparisons of Hamlet's speeches to that of poison confuses me. And sorry Hayden, but I'm a little confused how your comment related to the original post, but it was an interesting Idea.
Nevertheless, i have to say i agree wholeheartedly with Michelle. Hamlet's words are not poison. They are not disguised as something else, they are clear and to the point. They're clear enough that the entire court takes notice almost immediately that somehting is amiss with Hamlet.
Claudius' slow and steady politics and manipulation seem much better related to poison. His first monologue to the court is eloquently delivered, disguised as that of a remorseful brother. Although in reality it has a hidden meaning and motives that are entirely selfish, much like the actual poison. This is fitting i think, considering he was the first one to use it.
I was also thinking that Polonius might be a good example of someone using poisonous words. When giving instructions to his servent to spy on Laertes while he's at school, his words entirely sidestep the point. The servant is confused as to the purpose of his mission and polonius continues to avoid the truth, and covers it up with various excuses; insisting he merely wants to protect his son.
And i think the question of how lethal poison words truly are can be answered in the deaths of the main characters. It's a long-standing lesson that deception never ends well. Shakespear merely managed to tell it more eloquently and with complex characters. Claudius's crime and deception as well as Polonius' scheming and tricking led to both their tragic deaths. And although they may have been deserved, they were nevertheless a direct result of the poisonous words, or lied, told by both characters.
From reading Othello, I know that the 'poison' Iago pours into Othello's ear is the rumor that Desdemona is cheating on Othello with Cassio. So when thinking about this blog in relation to Hamlet, I kept thinking of instances when one character tried to destroy the confidence, innocence, relationships… basically life of another.
The character that I kept coming back to was Polonius. Polonius is a very manipulative, conniving character. His intentions are poisonous and hurtful, and even though his words aren’t as cleverly crafted as Hamlet’s, it makes no difference in what he intends to do.
Polonius acts out of…evil, where as Hamlet acts out of revenge. Polonius tries to spoil Hamlet’s relationship with his parents when he poisons them into questioning Hamlet and urging them to spy on him.
Polonius also stresses Ophelia’s relationship with Hamlet by giving his useless judgment on Hamlet’s character, and by forcing her to act as bait to lure Hamlet so they could spy on him.
A pivotal instance where "one character pours poison into the ears of another" is when Claudius observes the reenactment of his concealed murder. As he watches Lucianis pours the poison into the Player King's ear and later appear on the scene with the Queen, he can not bear to see the rest. He can only gape at it, shocked at the sight of the crime he had committed to wear the crown, and can only run off yelling "Give me some light, away!" These infected words are lethal as his real poison because it actually made him look back at the event. It had such an impact on him that it even worried him about his afterlife , whether he will be lead to heaven or is damned to the underworld.
Like Michelle, I was surprised by the number of people that felt Hamlet was the most guilty of spreading poison.
Hamlet may be eloquent, brandishing his words as weapons before him, but his verbal daggers are hardly coated with poison. They're overt, blatant, up-front, head-on.
Poison, on the other hand, is the most subtle and backhanded method of murder. Lethal yet stealthy--an undetectable dash in one's cup of coffee. You just don't see it coming, especially in your sleep.
When Hamlet unleashes a verbal barrage, however cruel it maybe, the recipient is certainly aware of the assault. Some of his actions can be construed to be despicable and underhanded, but I feel that his utterances can not.
Our good king Claudius, on the other hand, is notable in that he has corrupted and compromised not only the people around him, but effectively the entire state of Denmark.
The unnatural and anxious atmosphere of the first couple scenes in the play imply from the very start that something is rotten in the state of Denmark--and it has everything to do with the recent shift of power.
Just as he won power by pouring poison into King Hamlet's ear, Claudius maintains his reign by whispering poisons into the ears of Denmark--he smoothly convinces the court and country that his marriage was anything but incestuous, that his ascent to the throne was due to Hamlet's absence, that the Norwegian threat forced him to take the reins.
With such corruption at its helm, Denmark festers and weakens as Cornelius struggles to keep hold of his position in spite of his conscience. (I remember lines in the book that explicitly make this connection between kingdom and king, but I can't find them at the moment.)
In the end, Cornelius' poison spreads far too quickly to control, and his corruption of Laertes, in particular, results in the death of Danish nobility and monarchy. Then Fortinbras comes across a deeply poisoned Denmark, sweeps in, and sweeps it up.
Tragic.
Hamlet does not solely dish out poison in the form of words and theater, but gets a taste of his own medicine, er poison. Ironically, when the Ghost first introduces/explains the poisoning of himself by Claudius, he instills a poison unto Hamlet, revenge. The source of most of the future linguistic poisons comes from Hamlets rash feelings, actions, and conversations.
Hamlet speaks poisons through different mediums; the play, his relationship with Ophelia, and his rash actions. While watching what Claudius thought was a normal play, Hamlet plotted to poison the unsuspecting Claudius. As the play reached its climax, a near replica of Claudius' poisoning of Hamlet's father, Claudius pleads for light as he can not stand to witness his own demons.
Following that Hamlet produces poison through his rash actions. By stabbing at the "rat" behind the drapes he ends up killing Polonius, which leads to the poisoning of Ophelia. Ophelia becomes greatly troubled after learning her loved one (Hamlet) killed her father. This drives her to death, though not solely on Hamlets killing of Polonius but the ensuing "crossfire" (someone mentioned earlier on the blog) .
Poison dripped into the ears of many but it was the introduction of idea that Claudius poisoned Hamlet's father that opened the floodgates. Hamlet, driven by revenge, toppled the first domino, so to speak, and what ensued was a contagious spilling of poison.
Once again my post is late and once again I am sorry for the delay. This time it really was out of my hands as the internet on my computer went haywire. Oh and as a quick side note I did write this on Sunday after Michael Cornea posted his response so that’s why I reference his blog in particular. But my poor blogging habits and valid, but lame, excuses are not the topic of this conversation. “Poisonous words” are what we’re talking about today.
While Michael did steal most of the examples I was going to use, I found another that also conveys the point that I want to make. Words are what plays, and life, are made of. Most of us use words as our primary means of communication with other people in our lives. And we have all fallen victim to the most “poisonous” forms of speech, which is gossip. Gossip thrives everywhere, it is virtually impossible to avoid and the Royal House of Denmark is no exception. There are rumors of murder, judgments have been passed upon the “ore’ hasty marriage” of the King and Queen, and there is even talk that the poor, grief-ridden prince has gone mad. Whether or not any of this gossip is true or not (and we all know what is true and what is not from reading the play), it is the whispers and the plotting based off of these words that the entirety of the play is conceived and enacted. Without (As Michael mentioned) Hamlet Senior’s ghost traipsing around telling Hamlet Jr. about how he had died, Hamlet Jr. would have, eventually, moved on with his life and would have never had to bear the burden of revenge. Without the judgments passed by Hamlet and his father about Gertrude and Claudius’s marriage, Hamlet again wouldn’t have felt the need to avenge his father and/or protect his mother from the villain that is his uncle. And without the assumption that Hamlet was going mad, Hamlet would probably not needed to act so oddly, and most assuredly wouldn’t have needed to purposefully sabotage his relationship with Ophelia purely for appearances sakes.
Now the one passage example that wasn’t used that I found was when Hamlet is talking to his mother in her room/closet. He is speaking to her (after already killing Polonius) accusing her of all of her crimes stating (among other things), “Nay but to live in the rank sweat of an enseamed bed, stewed in corruption, honeying and making love over the nasty sty-” after which Gertrude cuts him of and immediately cries, “O, speak no more. These words like daggers enter in my ears. No more, sweet Hamlet.” The guilt is eating her up inside and when her “sweet” son Hamlet essentially calls her a whore, her ears cannot take the truth anymore. She knows who she is, she knows that she married Claudius soon and that she has a lust that she can’t control. All of these things she knows, but when her son confronts her and slanders her, she cannot deal with it. This is the type of “poison” that ruins the lives of everyone at Elsinore Castle, the poison of gossip, specifically gossip that is true.
When Gertrude tells Hamlet quit the black clothes and mourning, that could be considered poison to Hamlet. His mother is not providing words of comfort, but words of logic that doesn't help. He doesn't like it how she doesn't mourn for King Hamlet and resents her for it. When you tell a young person to do something without elaboration or much meaning behind it, they won't like it. Hamlet does not like how everyone around him is fine with the world -- he expects more. He wants more people to sense what he's sensing.
Ophelia is poisoned by her father and brother when they tell her to stay away from Hamlet (men) yet talk to her with suggestive words -- her brother especially. Her feelings about sexualitity and men are muddled. Towards the end of the play, when Ophelia no longer has Hamlet or her father, and her brother is in France, she loses herself. Losing a part of her identity left her as mad as fake Hamlet, which led to death.
Post a Comment