In Act I, Scene 2, Lines 76-86, Shakespeare introduces a primary motif in Hamlet, what "seems" vs. what is real. Hamlet tells Gertrude that he has "that within which passeth show…" Although the mission he receives is one of revenge (pretty thoroughly botched, we must admit, though Claudius does finally pay the price), think instead of Hamlet on a quest for truth. Where may he look to find it? Or, perhaps more to the point, where does he find "seeming truth" that is belied by its lack of that something within that "passeth show"?
Choose an example of one or the other and quote that passage in your comment.
This line of thinking ought to help many of you in composing your essays.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Last Hamlet post you say? Well then, I had better go out with a bang. Let's see, where to start? Ah, here we are. Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are two very seeming fellows. I will be referring to act two scene two, beginning at approximately line 225, with references from the beginning of the scene.
These two gentlemen are Hamlet's good friends. Or seem to be.
You know what? Never mind. However, I won’t erase what I’ve already written, because I want to point something out. The passage I was about to use is the one where Guildenstern and Rosencrantz confront Hamlet at the King and Queen’s request. I was prepared to write a nice analysis of the way that, at the tip of a hat, with hardly a word otherwise, Hamlet’s two friends agree to spy on him. However, on re-examining the beginning of the scene, when R&C are talking to Gertrude and Claudius, the two friends do not agree to spy; they agree to try and discover what is bothering their friend. The King’s silver tongue is at work again, weaving a quilt of words to hide his true intentions. What friend would not desire to help another friend who is so obviously suffering some inner turmoil? I believe that Hamlet realizes this, because he certainly doesn’t seem at all angry at his friends.
So, after that small revelation, I can see that in the passage I’ve selected it is Claudius who seems, as he so often does.
Actually, I’ve just been thinking about this even further, and at this point, Hamlet has only just found out that Claudius murdered old Hamlet. He has not yet begun to plot his revenge, and there is, so far, no scene with Hamlet acting the part of a madman. The king doesn’t have his suspicions yet, unless they are unknown to us and are only a result of his own guilt, not the result of any action of Hamlet. The King does seem, but not because he wishes to find out some hidden motive of Hamlet’s. He only seems to care. It’s my personal opinion that at this point, Claudius has some sort of affection for Hamlet. He is his brother’s son after all. So, I guess that when I said “The King does seem…” just now, what I really meant was, “I’m not sure if the King seems or not.” Honestly, the more I think about the scene, the more I doubt myself and become unsure of who seems and who has that inner something.
It’s possible that Claudius really cares for Hamlet at this point and is worried about him. It’s also possible he doesn’t care at all and is only concerned about the negativity brought on by Hamlet’s dour mood. I feel pretty sure about Gertrude, Guildenstern, and Rosencrantz all being true of heart, as well as Hamlet when he…wait, hold that thought. Actually, never mind. For a brief moment I thought that Hamlet was the one seeming, pretending to be happy when in truth he is raging inside. But, there really isn’t any evidence pointing to him being angry, and he is really very cordial and joking with his friends. So, now I’m just doubting myself again. To seem or not to seem? That is the question.
At this point, I would welcome any insight on just who “seems” in this passage which has me so consternated. Is anyone really seeming here? Or am I right to think that at this point in the play, it’s too early to determine the secret motivations of the two characters, Claudius and Hamlet, who are most likely to “seem” here? Do they both seem? One? Neither? Heh, so much for going out with a bang. So, whoever reads this, I’d appreciate getting your opinions on this.
I'm going to barge in, unwelcome as I may be, just to clarify a few things. Then I will sidle out as though I were never here.
By the time Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are called to court, as many as two to three months have gone by since the visitation of the Ghost. Hamlet has been wearing the antic mask all that time. Gertrude is concerned and Claudius even more so -- after all, he made Hamlet stay in court, presumably to keep an eye on the boy, and what he sees he doesn't like. I think Matt is correct. Claudius only seems concerned. Really, he is suspicious. Hamlet's old buddies have no choice but to comply with the royal wish. As they say, "Both your majesties / Might, by the sovereign power you have of us, / Put your dread pleasures more into command / Than to entreaty."
R & G, poor schlemiels, are thus caught, as Hamlet later says, between "mighty opposites". To him they are just people who seem to be friends but are engaged in intrigue. To them Hamlet must indeed seem puzzling, as he has gone far, far beyond them in his philosophical musings. I think he is glad to see them -- you can tell by the friendly and amusing banter they all engage in. But he quickly senses they are there under false pretenses, and when they fail to understand his quite genuine,rather existential complaint about the "prison" of Denmark -- "I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all of my mirth…" Hamlet pretty much gives up on them. Anyway, he can't trust them.
Over time, his attitude toward his old school chums really sours, and he treats them with open contempt as lackeys for Claudius and not friends at all. He sees them, a bit unfairly, as being as rotten and false as the rest of the court of Denmark. It's sort of similar to the way in which he condemns all women, especially Ophelia, because of what his "seeming virtuous" mother did. Ophelia, too, is caught in the middle.
See his "Will you play upon this pipe?" exchange with Guildenstern in Act III, scene 2, after the play-within-a-play and compare it with his speech to Horatio before the play, in which he praises Horatio because he is not "a pipe for fortune's finger /
To sound what stop she please." Horatio, Hamlet has decided, is the only person he knows who is exactly as he seems -- a good and loyal friend with no ulterior motives -- and so the only person he can trust.
Wow -- I really went to town. But I could get into this late night blogging thing if it weren't for the generation gap.
Sayonara.
Oh, okay, that really helps knowing that some time has elapsed between those two points. I think Hamlet is a bit rash in his judgments and generalizations of others. Sure R & G aid the King, but I believe this to be unwitting. They think that they are helping Hamlet. So, while they could be classified as “seeming,” I would say that they seem in the most innocent sense. In trying to help their friend, they are at the same time helping Claudius. It’s unfortunate that Hamlet rejects them so harshly later on, but again, it’s understandable after what he’s gone through.
It’s been a long week, so, I’m going to cut this off here, and examine the passages containing the flute references tomorrow. Goodnight.
I find it interesting that Shakespeare, while confirming Claudius' guilt, never specifies the true nature of the ghost: as either the spirit of King Hamlet, or a demon. He gives ample evidence for both interpretations. This ambiguity slows Hamlet's revengeful hand, and begins his search for the truth necessary for a justifiable revenge. Some will argue that Claudius' quilt confirms the ghost's identity: the spirit of King Hamlet. But, I must disagree here. If the ghost was a demon, he could be motivated to expose the truth to Hamlet, hoping the truth will bring destruction to Denmark's royalty. I think the ghost is the chief source of moral ambiguity in the tale.
The thought of Hamlet’s journey throughout the play as a quest for truth is interesting and compelling, as one can claim that he has already been presented with the truth at the end of Act 1. Undoubtedly he has been, as the ghost’s claim of being murdered by his brother turns out to be shockingly true. Moreover, after Hamlet Sr.’s revealing of the circumstances of his death, Hamlet Jr. does not doubt his father’s words. He has expected it (“O my prophetic soul!”) and upon hearing the full story, proceeds to thoroughly damn his uncle as he cries, “O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!” (1.5.106). In the light of this evidence, one can surely say that his quest for truth has begun and ended right there. But Hamlet is no mere ordinary man who soaks up and then regurgitates what he has been told. Lingering doubts of the ghost’s validity and nature remain. Hamlet must himself “…catch the conscience of the King” and affirm the ghost’s claims to be satisfied (2.2.16). Through the clever use of the play, Claudius’ emotions and guilt become evident in the mirror of his own deeds and Hamlet does indeed catch the conscience of the King. In this way, Hamlet quest for truth has been more of an affirmation of a truth he already knew.
But as I said above, Hamlet is a deep guy and the play would have been tediously dull if it was just Hamlet going around and gathering proof for the circumstances of Hamlet Sr.’s death. More than just a quest for the truth of his father’s death, Hamlet also represents Hamlet’s quest for the true nature of the people around him. Hamlet is a very perceptive and is able to see through the “seeming” nature of those around him. Like Matt said, Hamlet’s encounters with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern highlight a “seeming” nature of friendship. Yes, they were caught between “mighty opposites” but as the play progressed, it can be seen that they have no qualms about “playing upon” Hamlet. As Hamlet accuses, “You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; [and] you would pluck out the heart of my mystery…” (3.2.372). Friends, no matter the circumstances, do not sell out their friends. When contrasted to Horatio, one can especially see through Rosencrantz’s and Guildenstern’s façade of friendship. In such ways, Hamlet is able to see through the seeming nature of all those around him: through Claudius, Polonius, and Gertrude. He has an uncanny ability to detect whether others around him are being honest or not.
Hamlet discovers Claudius as a seeming character on his journey to find the truth. For everyone except the Ghost and eventually Hamlet, Claudius is innocent of the death of King Hamlet. Claudius, who opens up Act I Scene II with a few lines commemorating the deceased Hamlet, does not appear to have any thoughts that would lead someone to suspect him of Hamlet’s untimely death. Though he certainly doesn’t need to convince the people that he wasn’t involved (for no one suspects him), he does take a moment to acknowledge the situation to possibly lessen any feeling of suspicion that people may have or to calm his own guilty conscious (and yes, from a logical standpoint it would also be appropriate due to the occasion of the transitioning of powers).
From Hamlet’s perspective, he originally has no reason to suspect that Claudius is lying either. However, the encounter with the Ghost who proclaims that Claudius murdered his father shakes things up a bit. Though he is unsure if it was a Ghost or demon, he goes along with the information handed to him and further explores the matter. Not until he overhears the confession that Claudius makes in Act III Scene III does he completely understand the truth, and sees beyond Claudius’ façade.
To the point, there are a couple important pretenses behind Claudius' character which are vital for Hamlet to discover in order to strike his revenge. The truth behind King Hamlet's murder is obviously the main one because without such a cover up there would be little plot or suspension.
Oh and congratulations J.D. on staying up until midnight! :) Way to go!!
When I read the OP by Mr Duncan, I immediately flashed back to Thursday's class when he was describing how Hamlet is faced with deception wherever he turns.
(You know what I hate? I hate that it's super-duper hot in my room, but if I open my window even a centimeter the temperature goes below 0 within three seconds.)
In IV.ii Hamlet calls Rosencrantz a "sponge . . . that soaks up the King’s countenance, his rewards, his authorities". This is what I think of when I think "deception" in terms of Hamlet. He trusts Ros. and Guil. but they betray him in a way, even though the orders come from a higher power than Hamlet.
Hamlet's true quest for truth sends him searching himself, most notably the "To be or not to be" soliloquy. It began -- in the film's interpretation -- as a sham to fool those hiding behind the curtains but then became more of a searching for his own truth and what to do about the recent occurrences. Despite the fact that deception may be around every corner, the only person he can trust is himself, and he takes up the job of snooping around for truth, via the small play he has, and speaking privately to his mother, etc.
Hamlet seems to go around with a quest to seek out what is real and what is the truth. All around him lies surround him where he must try to find out the real truth. It is true that by the time he talks to the ghost he finds the truth behind the death of Hamlet Sr. He later tries to find the truth of the people around him. Throughout he tries to find the truth to justify his revenge for the pain he has gone through.
Hamlet get angry at his childhood friends R&G because he feel them to be acting against his own good even though they do not know that the orders they are taking hurt Hamlet.
I found this to be a difficult prompt to respond to, and I'm not sure why. It's interesting.
>David Kim said...
>This post has been removed by the author.
>December 14, 2008 5:48 PM
is me, obviously--I felt that what I had submitted wasn't what I wanted to say, and after finding out that school was canceled, I thought that I'd think about it for another day.
But apparently that was a bad choice (given my absence from mention in "Attention Slackers!") so... without further ado, some [unsatisfactory] thoughts on what "seems" and what is real.
After the murder of his father and the betrayal of his mother, Hamlet embarks on two quests for truth--one to find the meaning in life and worth in humankind with a shattered idealism such as his, and a more conscious journey to find the truth hidden behind the throne of Elsinore.
Unfortunately for Hamlet, the entire Danish royal court is ensnared in a storm of deception, betrayal, lies, and espionage. Few characters truthfully speak their mind or state their true intentions. Polonius, the conniving old reconnoiterer, sums it up rather perfectly in Act 2: "And thus do we of wisdom and of reach / With windlasses and with assays of bias / By indirections find directions out . . ."
He's got his work cut out for him, and his journey will throw him to incredible emotional and philisophical lows.
What's more, many of the questions Hamlet faces are, by nature, fraught with uncertainty. Should a ghostly spirit be trusted, or is it, in truth, a fiend? Is it reasonable to trust a ghostly spirit to be reliable in matters of its own death? Can Hamlet find out what Claudius really did from his behavior and composure alone?
In the face of such questions, it might not be entirely fair to call Hamlet "indecisive." He quests for truth in a world filled with untruth and uncertainty; for Hamlet, in particular, it is necessary to try and do things like "catch the conscience of the King" himself before taking The Ghost's seeming words for granted.
In other plays, such things might just be taken for granted. In other plays, Hamlet might simply run Claudius through in Act 1, and that would be that. In other plays, Hamlet might not be concerned with matters of life after death, of human existence, of repentance and redemption.
But not in Hamlet. In Hamlet and for Hamlet, actions are as complex as the situations that they take place in.
It leads one to wonder--just what uncertainties are we, in our own lives, assuming as truth when we act and look at others? Do we fully and properly search for the truth behind the "seeming" information we collect?
Something else interesting:
The various seeming truths in Hamlet are all uttered in eloquent, artful lines. Such is the nature of deception in this play--Claudius, Polonius, and Hamlet manipulate and make use of their mastery of words.
The foil of truth to the eloquence of falsehood, then, would be truth in simplicity.
Now, in moments where Hamlet manages to brush aside the atmosphere of "seems" and has shining, enlightening conversations of truth and honesty--for example, his encounters with Rosencrans and Guildenstern in Act 2, Scene 2 ". . . be even and direct with me whether you were sent for or no," in Act 3, Scene 2 "Will you play upon this pipe? . . . Call me what instrument you will, though you fret me you cannot play upon me," and in honest moments with Horatio like in Act 5, Scene 2 "Not a whit. We defy augury . . . since no man of aught he leaves knows what is't to leave betimes. Let be."--in these moments, Shakespeare does away with the iambic pentameter and states things in direct prose.
Probably not a coincidence.
When I think of the primary motif in Hamlet of what 'seems' vs what is real, I think of Hamlets madness. It's a commonly debated issue of whether or not Hamlet's madness is real, or maybe just seems real.
Later, in Act 1 Scene 4, Horatio is pleading Hamlet not to follow the ghost, "...and there assume some other horrible form, which might deprive your sovereignty of reason, and draw you into madness." This is the first time madness is mentioned in the play, and certainly not the last time. Horatio pleads him not to follow because he thinks Hamlet will turn into some kind of mad, horrible monster. I think this is where Hamlet really starts becoming (or acting?) a little cuckoo for cocoa puffs, or just plain mad.
As for whether Hamlet seems to be mad, or really is mad, I'm not at all sure. I think he has more rage then madness, and he's putting on an act to accomplish his revenge.
On a side note, I'm about to send my thesis Mr. Duncan, and I implore you to reconsider extending the deadline for the 10 points to today at 3 also! Over the course of the weekend my fingers have been so cold, and I just couldn't type with them...So please find it in your kind heart to forgive our procrastinating souls =)
Ah, what a convenient final post seeing that my own essay is of truth and trust.
Hamlet has been led through a trail of deceit and unfaithfulness as he plods along his royal life as he searches for the truth. The play, although a play of revenge has another theme, a play of deceit and trust. We see the forms of mistrust in the entirety of the play, from the sweet, loving duo of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to the sly old chap of Polonius. Deceitfulness rides along with these characters because deceit always leads to mistrust. One can’t go without the other. Characters that also fit the description are Claudius and Ophelia, Claudius knowing full well what he is doing making all of his own decisions, and Ophelia only a pawn in the game just being a sheep and doing what her father tells her. This little pairing has made me come to realize the masterminds and the mere players of the people who try to control their lives by changing other’s.
Claudius and Polonius are the ones that truly only seem to be who they are. Claudius only seems to be worried of Hamlet Sr. death, but we as an audience knows that that’s not the case. Hamlet indeed knows that as well, but only does he truly trust himself is when he believes it. Which leads to another fact, that Hamlet had some trouble accepting the truth within him; that revenge is a difficult task that Hamlet had a hard time mustering up the courage to do whilst he had the chance when Claudius was praying. He didn’t trust himself to make the move, even though he was certain it was Claudius that slayed his father. Back to Claudius, Claudius is a sly and cunning man that slips beneath the radar and has the ability to make other’s believe that social façade that he puts up day after day. In the beginning, Claudius seemed like a coldhearted murderer that can kill a man, his own brother, and not have a second thought about it. However, as he kneels down praying, we can see the anguish that he has bottled up inside, “In the corrupted currents of this world / Offense’s gilded hand may shove by justice, / And oft ‘tis seen the wicked prize itself / Buys out the law” (act 3, scene 3) the secret that he’s never allowed to share otherwise he would be put to death. He only seems to be that strong and political man in public, but in the inside, he is breaking apart. Except, as the play does go on, Claudius forgets about his sins as he tries to commit another sin of getting rid of Hamlet. Which makes the only scene of him feeling remorseful of his past actions only seem like he was feeling guilty of his actions. Claudius is just a really shifty character, but has the ability to hide it well.
For Polonius, we can see that he’s always just seeming to please the people around him. He goes into great extent to help the king and queen spy on their son, he goes and spies on his own son as well. He is a people pleaser, therefore he never does have the opportunity to display his own true self, “ (Hamlet) Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in the shape of a camel? (Polonius) By th’ mass, and ‘tis like a camel indeed. (Hamlet) Methinks it is like a weasel (Polonius) It is backed like a weasel. (Hamlet) Or like a whale. (Polonius) Very like a whale” (act 3, scene 2). He seems like a fool, a man that follows orders and takes other people’s matters into his own hands. His own opinion doesn’t matter if he has people of higher rank that he sees as in the need of his help. Only his actions reveal that he isn’t a fool, his nine piece of advice that he gives to Laertes as he heads off.
With R&G, I won’t make a big deal about them because it seems as if Matt, JD, Michelle, and Michael have covered them pretty well. However, with R&G and Ophelia, they were placed into a game that they had no choice in joining, and they’re seeming to be Hamlet’s friend and confidant were shattered in essence as they became an agent for Claudius and Polonius. Ophelia was forced into a situation where she had switch from being aloof and avoid Hamlet as much as possible, to being thrusted upon him. Ophelia doesn’t think for herself at all, making her vulnerable to being someone who she isn’t. She only follows orders, as I said before like a sheep, which forces her to hide her true feelings of love and innocence of a young girl.
Lastly (sorry about this), I want to point out Shakespeare’s point of what “seems” and is not true. Shakespeare seems to have a penchant of calling women liars. Or women do not give the impression of being true to themselves or to others. As Hamlet talks to Ophelia, he speaks to her but refers to his mother, however at points I think it’s Shakespeare coming out of Hamlet and pointing out his own point of view, “God has given you one face and you make yourselves another. You jig and amble, and you lisp, you nickname God’s creatures and make your wantonness your ignorance” (act 3, scene 1). It almost as if has this anger towards women and how women are always just pretending to be themselves. Wearing make up to cover up what they were born with, changing the way they talk to fit in with whatever crowd they’re with, or changing the way they dress to blend in with the crowd. Yup, that’s it, heh sorry for the long post. Manatee size as Scott there puts it.
Hamlet is so conflicted, because everyone around him seems to be lying to him. After he learns the truth about his father’s murder, Hamlet starts seeing the world through a dark pair of glasses. His own uncle murdered his father yet he pretends to be in grief like everyone else. Claudius’ “seeming” grief can be recognized by Hamlet and it inflames his anger more.
Polonius sets Hamlet up and tries to deceive him with his daughter. This really tears him apart, because even the girl he loves is “betraying” him in a sense. When he cries to her, “get thee to a nunnery” he is yelling out that she should get herself away from the influence of the deceitful people around her. The phrase also represents Hamlet’s distrust of people, marriage, and relationships. Even his friends, who “seem” to care for him genuinely, are under the orders of Claudius. His beliefs in human nature are shattered by these acts.
The reason why Hamlet changes from the beginning of the play to after meeting the ghost is because of his distrust towards the world. He detests mankind and the selfish, ambitious nature of people like Claudius as well as the lustful, empty nature of people like Gertrude. He doesn’t trust people. Hamlet doesn’t even trust himself to a certain degree, because of his conflicted nature. He can’t decide forcefully and just act like Laertes can. Hamlet’s search for the truth is not only to verify the ghost’s words, but also to search for himself in the view of the dark colored glasses.
I saw Hamlet as one character in the book that did not take things people said for did at face value. He has had experiences with his deceptive uncle, the conniving Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (people who betrayed Hamlet’s trust) that have taught Hamlet to reserve his relationships. However, when it came to following out the orders of the ghost, Hamlet relatively blindly accepts what he is told is the truth, even though the only person who he actually trusts/can trust, Horatio, tells him to beware. I think that Hamlet was blinded by his grief and anger towards his mother. In this vulnerable state, he accepts the burden the ghost puts on him. He assumes that it is his fate that has forced him to set things right, “O, cursed spite, That ever I was born to set it right!”
Hamlet becomes too involved in his revengeful scheme, and his ‘antic disposition’, I think, consumes him. The revengeful acts he was ordered to carry out eventually bring his downfall. So, even though the ghost dished out the truth, it was infused with malice and this extremism that Hamlet ingests.
On his quest for truth, Hamlet spends much of his time trying to make certain of his uncle's guilt before he himself acts. The climax of the play is within the play inside a play when Claudius jumps up during the king's poisoning. Hamlet's actions only seem to maintain his facade of madness. Not everything is what it seems to be. Hamlet's "antic disposition" serves as a cover, hiding him whilst he exposes his uncle and the truth.
I think in order to see how Hamlet feels about what “seems” and what is real we first have to look at Hamlet himself. With his “antic disposition,” Hamlet does the very thing the court does and creates one public face that confuses the people around him, and another private face that allows us to see inside of Hamlet and what is really going on in his head-- the truth with Hamlet
Because Hamlet isn’t completely truthful and stoops down to the court’s level by lying about what is going on. It can then be said that Hamlet uses fire to fight fire. This tactic reveals that though Hamlet doesn’t like ‘the seeming face’ he appreciates the power of it and utilizes this power.
And because Hamlet uses his antic disposition and public seeming face so well (almost better than anyone in the court, even Claudius) it can be inferred that Hamlet has a pretty good idea of how to find the truth through the seeming truth. He finds all the truth he needs in the play the actor put on for the court. Having the murder played out in front of him, the king blows up and has to remove himself, thus proving the guilty conscience of the king. That was all the truth Hamlet needed in order to act.
For Hamlet, no matter where he turns, no one around him can be trusted (other than his ever loyal friend Horatio). He feels that his mother has betrayed both him and his father, Claudius stole the crown from his father, his old friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have been turned into spies by Claudius, and Hamlet is not even sure whether or not to believe the ghost.
Nearly everyone around him has proven to be false in some form or another in Hamlet's eyes. Only Horatio remains true and even tries help Hamlet discover the truth to his father's murder.
(I unfortunatly don't have my book with me so I will finish my post once I have it).
I have my book now, so I can finish my post. : ]
In one of Hamlet’s many soliloquies, he says how he is unsure whether or not the ghost is telling him the truth, “The spirit that I have seen may be a devil, and the devil hath power t’assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps, out of my weakness and my melancholy, as he is very potent with such spirits, abuses me to damn me” (II.ii.627-632). It is almost as if Hamlet is beginning to question even himself- questioning his memory of his encounter with the ghost, that at the time he was not suspicious of.
III, iv.
During this scene, Hamlet talks to his mother about looking inside herself. He wonders how she could be married to Claudius and doesn't she realize what wrong with that? "You go not till I set you up a glass/Where you may see the (inmost) part of you" (lines 24-25). Hamlet seems to know everything behind his mother's thinking. He tells her that she's incestuous and not a very good mother. She doesn't seem to pay much attention to the meaning behind his words, she pays more attention to his behavior. Because she agrees with Hamlet with a few of the things he's saying and seems not to be paying much attention, it seems like what Hamlet thinks of his mother is true. She embodies his current idea of her.
In the same scene, the ghost reappears to reaffirm that the queen is a traitor. Hamlet can see and hear the ghost but Gertrude cannot. At this point, the reader questions if the ghost is really true. While the guards and Horatio can also see the ghost (in the beginning of the play), the queen can't. Was the ghost before the same as the one now? Or is he more part of Hamlet's imagination (madness). The ghost tries to tell Hamlet the truth but develops into something without a basis. But ghosts don't originally have a basis. While Hamlet tries to confirm the ghost's words, a lot of dilemmas arise. His revenge against Claudius arises. The ghost planted an idea in Hamlet's head and he seeked the meaning behind it, doing such resulted in a lot of deaths.
First off, I would like to say that I’m sorry for the late post Mr. Duncan. I checked the blog last night, but apparently too early.
For most of the play I feel that Hamlet searches for the truth and only finds what ‘seems’ to be the truth. He looks for reason behind his mother’s hasty marriage and in the end he only receives her guilt (“O Hamlet, speak not more! Thou turn’st mine eyes into my very soul. . .” Act 3, scene 4, line 89-90) and her promise of secrecy (“Be thou assured, if words be made of breath and breath of life, I have no life to breathe what thou hast said to me.” Act 3, scene 4, line 201-203). Hamlet also looks for truth behind his father’s murder and receives betrayal and little explanation.
In the end, Hamlet looks to the fight with Laertes to find real truth. When Hamlet gets to the point where he has to choose whether or not to fight, he knows that he can for sure live by refusing to battle with Laertes; or possibly die, but confront Claudius, hopefully learning and exposing the truth about his father’s death. Hamlet has had enough with the “seeming truth” and just wants the real truth to come out. He chooses to fight, giving truth its best shot, saying that “there’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come— the readiness is all. . . Let be.” (Act 5, scene 2, line 207-211).
Wow, sorry, I guess I'm kind of a failure because I'm only just posting this now. Sorry, Mr. Duncan! But I will try to write a very thoughtful response to make up for my lateness.
Hamlet is caught in a court where people "seem" to be one thing and are another. His quest for truth is that much harder to complete because of the two-facedness of everyone in the Danish court. Claudius is one of the most obvious examples, like Matt mentioned. He pretends to grieve for his brother's death and then marries his brother's widow post haste. The rest of the court doesn't seem to be bothered by this, but this angers Hamlet immensely.
This is why when the Ghost, who may or may not be a demon, tells him of how Claudius murdered Hamlet Senior, Hamlet seems quite willing to believe it possible. He is cunning and smart, though, so instead of immediately running his uncle through with a sword, he devises a way to prove that his uncle is lacking that something "within that passeth show" (act 1, scene 2, line 86) or his guilt. His idea of "catching the conscience of the king" through the play is how he plans to find out if Claudius is really a murderer or not (act 2, scene 2, line 634).
Although Claudius does essentially admit his guilt during the play, Hamlet does not kill him when he has his chance. By this time, he is positive that Claudius killed his father and yet, when he's found Claudius alone and unarmed, he stays his blade, saying he will bide his time for him to be in sin rather than praying when he's killed. Although he's unmasked the "seeming truth" of his uncle's treachery, he still hesitates, which is his biggest mistake in the end. Although he did find out the truth, he hesitated and thus ended up dying himself in the end.
I should apologize too, Mr. Duncan, for my tardiness. Nevertheless, I suppose it's better to post this late than never.
This may sound incredibly stupid and obvious but I shall say it anyway: I believe Hamlet finds some truth in the words of his father's ghost. When I say that, I am not referring specifically to Hamlet Sr.'s murder at Claudius's hands. Rather, I am referring to the truth behind the unease in the court, in Denmark, that Hamlet perceives yet cannot fully understand. He knows only that something has changed, that something has been corroded, but he knows not what has corroded that something or why that something has been corroded. It is something that he cannot express verbally, so he blames those words that escape him, saying later to Horatio "I have words to speak in thine ear will make thee dumb" (IV, vi, line 21). Those words that he cannot express represent, in my mind, that something within that "passeth show", and they reveal how very little of something is betrayed at its surface, at its "seeming truth". His quest for truth begins as his understanding of language develops, as he recognizes how words can be manipulated and begins to manipulate words himself.
sorry that my posts is so late, i have been meditating on the idea of hamlet for a while though. I thought the degree of deception with in Hamlet astonishing. I had a vague idea of the play but I wanted to see it all in one concise sitting so I rented the lethal Hamlet. I found watching the sequential events without interruption very helpful to reveal cause and effect relationships, i found it also revealed the ridiculous amount of play acting. Everyone is taking on some sort of pretense to hide their secret motives. Marcellus is quite accurate when he says "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" act I, scene 4. Claudius obviously is presenting a "seeming truth" when he claims his murdered brothers throne. Even after the ghost reveals this to Hamlet he cannot be certain because he has no evidence that Claudius is innocent as he claims. Hamlet in turn is hiding his suspicion of Claudius's guilt. He never confronts Claudius accusingly. Polonious among the other spies of the King are sneaking around behind curtains trying to foil Hamlets possible plans of betrayal. Hamlet cannot even speak to Ophelia since he is always being watched. The King is paranoid about some one taking his throne like he so easily took his brother and this sets a mood of distrust and wariness in the palace. But Hamlet is not ensnared by these traps of the King, he somehow manages to keep one step ahead-- he finds out Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, is rarely caught off guard by Polonious, indeed he is only tricked by the King one time. This actually really surprised me that Hamlet didn't see something fishy in the Kings invitation to a dual. If he was so keen on all of the Kings other schemes how did he miss this one? Horatio even thought something was not quite right with it. I think Hamlet must have known the King was planning something with that, perhaps he was just tired of always being on guard and gave up. Maybe he even walked into the Kings trap knowingly with hopes of exposing the King as the trap was about to fall on him giving in evidence that the King was trying to do away with him. Its hard to determine how much Hamlet really knew but I find it imposable to believe someone as quick as him could be so easily fooled. For me when Hamlte gave his little speach about "seams madame, I know not seams..." he is reflecting on the atmosphere of distrust and deception in the palace. He is also commenting on his disappointment in his mother who seamed to be a loving devoted wife who then disproved this. His father seamed an immortal hero but he was brought down easily. Everything that had seamed reliable and true to Hamlet had fallen in at this point. Little did he know how prophetic this reflection was. Or did he? Maybe Hamlet knew the world would never quite be at rights now. Who can really tell... that is the great mystery of Hamlet, there is only what seams.
i hope you will still give me some credit Mr. Duncan even though im late because i rescued a frozen hummingbird in my back yard last night and forgot to check the blog, which is a lame excuse but i believe humanitarian efforts should be rewarded, please...
Hmm. A frozen hummingbird. I wonder if it was on a mission for the Happy Prince…
(Jeez, everything I write is some sort of literary allusion.)
Well, all right, Krista. There's no school tomorrow anyway, so amnesty is granted.
By the way, how's the hummingbird?
I'm sorrrrry!!! this so late. Happy 3rd snow day everyone!
Where does Hamlet find truth? Does he ever find truth? I suppose in the very end when all secrets are revealed he discovers the truth of who is peers really are, however, I'm not sure there's much truth to it when there's murder involved.
I think it's clear that because he is searching so diligently for truth that "seeming truth" is found everywhere.
However, I think I'll focus on his relationship with Ophelia. I would like to argue that in that situation he unintenionally ran away from the truth. I believe that he and Ophelia loved eachother very deeply, and that his attempted escape from this love was a mistake. He was so obsessed with the means of finding the truth in people that he failed to see that which was right in front of him. This, I think, is one of the stronger tragedies of our play. That Ophelia, perhaps one of the more honest characters, is used and manipulated and abused to the point of madness. She does what she is told and never truly betrays Hamlet. When discussing the issue of Hamlet's love with her father and brother she merely argues for Hamlet and the virtue of his intentions. And when forced to stand in the hallway as bait for Hamlet's Antics, not once does she honestly attempt to decieve him, despite his cruelty toward her. And yes, although his purpose was valiant, i don't think his attitude toward Ophelia was kind or in any way necessary.
It should also not be left out that Hamlet only ran away from his relatinoship with Ophelia because he no longer trusted women. This is clear in his speech condemning marriages and telling Ophelia to " get thee to a Nunnery". His mother's marriage to his Uncle left him untrusting and sceptical. This too was a tragedy. Hamlet goes seeking truth where it is not to be found, and runs away from that truth which he already had.
I apologize again for my tardiness.
the hummingbird is doing good, we released him yesterday to go join his mate and they are both still hanging in our back yard. we've been changing out our hummingbird feeders every few hours since it keeps freezing so they are all congregating around are house for food. i tried emailing my thesis but i dont know if it went or not... i used
james_duncan@beavton.k12.or.us.. is this accurate?
The question of what “seems” and what is real is a true dilemma for Hamlet in this play. From what Hamlet believes is his mother’s true motive for marrying Claudius so hastily to what causes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to visit Hamlet in Denmark results in Hamlet entering a stage of disbelief in many of those around him. He feels and knows that the entire court of Elsinore and its people have been falsely led about the truth of Hamlet Sr.’s death, but he verifies this by putting forth a play that would shock Claudius and also give away his secret to Hamlet.
Hamlet also enters a quest to see whether avenging one’s father is a strong enough reason to take the life of another human being. He constantly goes back and forth on this issue which can be highlighted with his “To be or not to be…” soliloquy. Though Hamlet Sr.’s ghost notifies Hamlet of his murder and urges his to avenge his father’s death, Hamlet still faces an inner battle of whether or not it is the right thing to do.
p.s
Im really sorry I was so late. Ive been having some technical difficulties.
(While in a state of no school/snow week bliss I "seemed" to have forgotten about the blog. Better late than never I guess.)
Hamlet, blinded by his grief, the loss of his father, and anger, Gertrude and Claudius' sudden marriage, accepts what the Ghost tells him as the truth. The reason Hamlet does so is because he seeks justification of his dislike towards Claudius, becoming susceptible to believe anything negative regarding him. This allows Hamlet to believe what "seems" like the truth from a ghost.
Once he learned of the perceived truth, Hamlet went on a wuest for truth, a fact verifying mission, followed shortly thereafter by a mission of revenge. Hamlet is determined to find out if Claudius truly killed his fther as the Ghost proclamated. So he sets traps, the play and other verbal confrontations, and then proceeds to act on his findings. Throughout both of these missions hes irrational and rash decisions/actions destroy many both physically and emotionally.
Hamlet finds the "seeming" truth but at the cost of the lives of Gertrude, Claudius, Polonius, Ophelia, even himself. Yet the turning point is a moment when Hamlet snaps out of his irrational self and doesn't perform a rash action. Instead of killing Claudius while he is praying after the play, he waits for a more opportune time, to catch him in the act of sin, to send to hell for sure. This psostponemnet led to the deaths of Polonius, later Ophelia, Gertrude, and Hamlet himself.
It is amazing how one man's interaction with a unreal figure and another man's reaction at a play can lead to so many deaths. Anyways, Hamlet seeked the truth about his fathers death through a ghost, conversations with Gertrude and Claudius as well as others, and through Claudius' reaction to a play. When he finds out the truth he goes on a rampage, apparently Tom Cruise isn't the only one who can't handle the truth. (I better just stop here)
Wow my post is really late. But I have a good excuse. I have been rescuing kittens from frozen trees, saving drowning seagulls from the icy ponds and helping turtles cross the icy roads. Honestly though, sorry about the lateness Mr. Duncan, I totally forgot to check. But on with the post.
Now I think this is slightly off center from what the prompt was asking, but during the scene where Hamlet and his mother argue and Hamlet kills Polonius (Mel Gibson made it impossible to ever forget this scene anyway) Hamlet sees the ghost, but his mother does not. This seems to suggest that Hamlet is going mad. However, the ghost first appeared not to Hamlet but to the guards on the night watch. These scenes seem to contradict each other in a similar way "things seem" and "things are" do elsewhere. I don't believe that Hamlet's visons of a ghost are madness, but I see that the second vision gives the reaer question as to whether the ghost is being served or is Hamlet only serving himself.
Well mine (Of course and unfortunately) is the last, I would think(or
should I say, it would seem?).
The whole idea of things that "seem" to be something but are usually
another is basically the whole entire play of Hamlet. There are very few, if any times when the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, shine through. The closest example of this is probably when Ol' King Hamlet appears to Hamlet Jr. and states very clearly how he died and who killed him, but even then King Hamlet's emotions play into Hamlet's emotions causing later trouble within the Castle Elsinore. No, every bit of truth in Denmark is muddled with some sort of misperception on the matter. Even in small things like Hamlet's encounters with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are full of "seems". Hamlet "seems" to be their friend, and also "seems" to be a crazy person. But what is the truth, what happens in the end? Hamlet sends his so-called friends to their death in England and while Hamlet may be mad in anger, he is not a 100% bonafied nut-job as he has led many to believe. He has also claimed (and denied) to love Ophelia, and we never actually get a real truth from this as Ophelia kills herself before Hamlet can kill his uncle and everything can return to "normal" (What the heck is normal for these people anyway?) Eveything "seems" to be something different in the end. Even Hamlet's denile of knowing the
trickery and decite of mysteries is false. He tells his mother,
"Seems, I know not seems" when in fact his entire life revolves around them. To me it "seems" that what Denmark could use is a few years of blatant honesty, and with the recent deaths of the King, the other King, the Queen, and the Prince, then maybe that can happen.
Post a Comment