Hamlet: Time Line and Temporal Gaps

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Here is a first draft of a time line and time gaps within the play, Hamlet.

Let year zero be a relative year equal to the year in which King Hamlet died.

In approximately year -30, young prince Hamlet was born. And also during this year, King Hamlet killed King Norway presumably, I take it, in a fair fight or battle; that is, King Hamlet did not murder King Norway.

Sometime prior to year zero, Hamlet is in Wittenburg studying. Laertes is in France.

Also, Hamlet at this time has no romantic relationship with Ophelia.

Based upon the testimony of King Hamlet's ghost, Claudius was an adulterer; presumably, if I were to parse the ghost's speech enough, I would find that specifically Claudius was having sex with King Hamlet's wife, Gertrude, prior to King Hamlet dying (assuming that I believe the ghost; after all, how does the ghost know that his wife was committing adultery? For if he knew it at the time, he could have Cladius's head chopped off; was the ghost eaves dropping on Cladius and Gertrude after King Hamlet died?).

At year zero, King Hamlet dies. We eventually learn, if we believe we have read the play properly, that King Claudius actually murdered the former King Hamlet.

Also in year zero, perhaps one week later if communications were fast enough, Hamlet learns of his father's death.

Perhaps in another week Hamlet returns to Denmark.

Hamlet presumably saw some form of burial for his father. For instance, I.v: "Wherein we saw thee quitely inurn'd."

Now, here is where I become much less certain, because I cannot find a reference to this event in the text. When Hamlet returned to Denmark after hearing of his father's death, was Claudius already the new king? Or did Claudius subsequently become king? Perhaps it is not important?

But, I take it, prior to I.ii: "Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother's death," and even perhaps perior to I.i: "Who's there?" Claudius was already King, for who else might make the executive decision that Denmark should arm for war against the threat of young Fortinbras from Norway?

So, is it fair to say that sometime after King Hamlet's death and some time prior to I.i or I.ii, Claudius was made King (but had not yet married Gertrude)?

For now, until I hear otherwise, let it be assumed that Claudius became King before Hamlet ever returned to Denmark.

Hamlet, at the very least, was doing two things when we returned to Denmark:
1: Mourning is father's death.
2: Initiating a romantic interaction with Ophelia.

So, we might note that Hamlet appeared "normal" during this time period. He could undergo the stressors of his father's death, the loss of the crown to Claudius, and at the same time, he could initiate a romance with Ophelia.

Let's say that Hamlet's romantic overtures to Ophelia lasted about one month. We might say one month approximately, because Hamlet says, "nay, not so much, not two ... and yet within a month." Even though we are aware that there might be a two week lag from the death of King Hamlet and prince Hamlet arriving in Denmark, in which case Hamlet's romance with Ophelia would only be two weeks. But, let's say, in general, it was one month (but perhaps it really was 1.5 months).

Now, when we get to I.ii, this appears to be the wedding day where King Claudius marries Gertrude.

Hamlet's reaction is also given in I.ii: "O that this too too sullied flesh would melt, ..." So, we have a form of depressed expression from Hamlet, and his speach tends to focus only on his mother's hasty marriage. Presumably his mother might have married the Castle Chef, for example, and Hamlet would have been just as depressed. For it appears that her marrying Hamlet's uncle is not itself considered by Hamlet to be a huge deal. The focus, again, seeming to be upon his mother.

This marriage, then, is the first real stressor which starts to bend Hamlet.

In I.iii, Laertes and Polonius reveal that they are aware of some romantic interaction occuring between Ophelia and Hamlet. And, we have guessed or arbitrarily stated that this romance has been going on for one month. From this point in the play, Ophelia repulses any and all romantic overtures from Hamlet.

The second stressor is Hamlet's interaction with the ghost in I.v.

And so ends Act I.

Having read a bit from Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth by A. C. Bradley, Second Edition, 1905,

it appears that Act II scene one (II.i) begins two or three months after the end of act I. Where Act II opens with Polonius saying, "Give him this money and these notes, Reynaldo."

This is based on the observation that Act II and Act III and the first parts of Act IV are closely joined temporarily, and that in III.ii we have:

Hamlet: O God, your only jig-maker. ... For look you how cheerfully my mother looks and my father died within's two hours.

Ophelia: Nay, 'tis twice two months, my lord.

So, four months have passed since King Hamlet died. What did Hamlet do during this period:
1) Initially mourned his father's death.
2) Initially romanced Ophelia.

Then, about one month later, Hamlet's mother marries and Hamlet meets the ghost. And, also, proximate with this time, Ophelia rejects any more romantic overtures from Hamlet.

So, for the remaining three months out of these four, what has Hamlet been doing? Let's say it like this, Hamlet is being understood by the court, both Polonius, the King, and the Queen, as having gone mad (even though this period is not literally acted out on the stage). And, this perceived understanding of the court occurs before the opening of Act II, scene one.

It is roughly three months after Ophelia rejected all advances from Hamlet that Hamlet suddenly appears in her chamber, wherein Ophelia reports to her father (II.i): "O my lord, my lord, I have been so affrighted."

Act IV, scene four ends like this: "O, from this time forth My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth."

Then again, there is a pause of some number of weeks. During this period, Hamlet is sailing to England, his ship is assaulted by pirates, Hamlet boards the pirate ship, and Hamlet returns to Denmark.

After this some number of weeks, Act IV, scene five opens. And there is generally temporal continuity until the end of the play.

Thanks,
Craig

[John W Kennedy]

On 2016-01-29 03:45:20 +0000, craigshoemake...@gmail.com said:

Also, Hamlet at this time has no romantic relationship with Ophelia.

He is not openly courting her -- that doesn't mean she hasn't been in his dreams every night in Wittenberg, or that she hasn't been secretly singing "Strahlender Mond" since he left.

Hamlet presumably saw some form of burial for his father.  For instance, I.v:  "Wherein we saw thee quitely inurn'd."

These words do not unambiguously signify that Hamlet was an eyewitness.

-- 

John W Kennedy

"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."

  -- C. S. Lewis.  "An Experiment in Criticism"

[Willedever]

Hamlet is 16 years old during the play. The Clown Sexton's line that appears to suggest otherwise, in Scene 19, is in a context where the Clown is playing verbal games with Hamlet.

The Elder Fortinbrasse, the man killed in single combat by King Hamlet, was not the King of Norway. He was the King of Norway's brother.

Hamlet states in the play that he was at the U of Wittenberg for 3 years. So, when he left for the U he was 13.

The Ghost is a devilish imposter, it is not the spirit of King Hamlet.

Of course Hamlet attended his father's funeral.

Claudius had not been elected King at the time of Hamlet's return for his father's funeral.

When we first see Claudius, in Scene 2, we are seeing him on his first day of conducting business as King. We know that for a fact, because Claudius goes through certain formalities, including thanking his supporters, that a person will only do on his first day.

It appears the Ghost was first seen on the night of Claudius's election.

Claudius was not yet in charge when the order was given for the military buildup in the face of the apparent threat from Fortinbrasse. He did not give those orders.

Gertrude did.

The "standard" books on 'Hamlet' have been written by old men, a gaggle of chauvinists who thought Gertrude was nothing but a pillow with lips. They have severely misinterpreted both the Gertrude character and the play overall.

The marriage of Claudius and Gertrude was before Claudius was elected. The political boost from that marriage was what elevated Claudius enough to be elected.

Ophelia never repulses Hamlet. She gets ordered by her father to participate in an idiotic eavesdropping scheme that goes horribly awry and produces a tragic misunderstanding.

The passage of time between Scenes 5 and 6 is only 2 or 3 hours. The notion of 2 months comes from an inept misreading that has been perpetuated.

The reason Hamlet rushed to Ophelia's room is that after his encounter with the Ghost he had a terrifying nightmare that included seeing Ophelia tortured to death by her father. That's why we get Hamlet calling Polonius "Jephthah."

Try this:

http:/www.hamletonline.com

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Thanks John W Kennedy; and, thanks Willedever at hamletonline

for your comments and suggestions.

Certainly there exists at least some ambiguity in even establishing what might be considered simple facts about the play.

The next thing I will do, gradually, over time, is consider not just an outline of the play, but also consider what differences in this outline of the play have on how the play is experienced or understood (if there are any differences).

For instance, what if Hamlet is 16 years old or Hamlet is 30 years old. How does this effect the play? Can the play work if Hamlet is any of these two ages, or anywhere in between?

Or, as another instance, as I noticed this in a book recently, what if Hamlet was in Denmark when his father died? How does this simple fact (or non fact if it is false) effect the understanding and experience of the play? It may have no impact on the play either way, just as Hamlet's true age may have no impact of the play either way.

And another: whether
(1) Claudius first became King, then married Gertrude, or
(2) Claudius married Gertrude and became King simultaneously

does it matter? How does each scenario effect the understanding of the play, if it does at all?

So, my initial outline was simply a way, analytically, for me to slowly come to terms with the broad outlines of the play; and, eventually, potentially consider more difficult aspects of the play.

Thanks,
Craig

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2016-02-01 03:13:58 +0000, craigshoemake...@gmail.com said:
> And another: whether
> (1) Claudius first became King, then married Gertrude, or
> (2) Claudius married Gertrude and became King simultaneously

It couldn't be done /literally/ simultaneously, unless Shakespeare's
imagined laws of his imagined Denmark recognize the crown matrimonial,
in which case marriage and assumption of the crown would be the same
act.

--
John W Kennedy
"The grand art mastered the thudding hammer of Thor
And the heart of our lord Taliessin determined the war."
-- Charles Williams. "Mount Badon"

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Here is a second draft of a time line and time gaps within the play, Hamlet.

This is not meant to be a definitive outline which every one in the world is expected to agree with, for I believe that would be impossible. Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading and much appreciated receiving other peoples views which I then considered. If you feel any other errors exist, as it is well known that I can easily mis-read and misunderstand Shakespeare, please let me know so that I may futher consider your ideas.

Generally I use information from Quarto 2, the First Folio, or their combination, depending on what text I am reading at the time.

Let year zero be a relative year equal to the year in which King Hamlet died.

In approximately year -30, young prince Hamlet was born. And also during this year, or actually the same day prince Hamlet was born, King Hamlet killed King Norway's brother, presumably, I take it, in a fair fight or battle; that is, King Hamlet did not murder King Norway's brother. Fortanbras is the son of King Norway's brother, and obviously is of the same approximate age as Hamlet.

Interestingly enough, the grave digger started his first day of employment on the very day prince Hamlet was born (and this grave digger has held his job for 23 years).

Sometime prior to year zero, Hamlet is in Wittenburg studying, and Laertes is in France. Where exactly Hamlet was when his father died may or may not be important; it depends on what aspects of the play one might be considering. I would say that in general where Hamlet was at this moment is not overly important. I will simply assume that he was in Wittenburg studying, but can change my mind if some point in the play suggests other alternatives and other ways to look at the play.

Also, Hamlet at this time has no romantic relationship with Ophelia that is supported by any evidence given in the play. That is, Shakespeare is silent on this topic.

Based upon the testimony of King Hamlet's ghost, Claudius was an adulterer; presumably, if I were to parse the ghost's speech enough, I would find that specifically Claudius was having sex with King Hamlet's wife, Gertrude, prior to King Hamlet dying. So, here is the text, and it seems to be contained at the minimum in one line of the Ghost's text:

Hamlet: O my prophetic soul! My Uncle!
Ghost: Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast, ...

What we are interested in is understanding the phrase so that we can hopefully understand the words that Hamlet is hearing. Obviously, Hamlet will have issues dealing with women in the play, so we need to understand what the ghost is saying to Hamlet; and, it appears to me that the ghost is unequivocally stating that Gertrude committed adultery with Claudius (though the phrase treats Claudius as the noun) before King Hamlet died.

Whether the ghost is a good ghost or a demon is not known to us; we will probably be more interested in what Hamlet feels and thinks, and how Hamlet interprets the situation. Certainly, as pretains to women, the ghost, good or bad, is pouring poison into Hamlet's ears concerning women. I personally believe the ghost is a good ghost, but like all of the characters in the play, is not perfect. The ghost seems to have these imperfections:
(1) Attempting revenge while he is trying to purge himself of sins.
(2) Talking way too much, that is, giving Hamlet "way to much information" I think the phrase goes, about Gertrude; that is, the ghost is ranting about his unfaithful wife instead of sticking to the topic at hand: his murder.

The ghost does say something I find quite good in that he tells Hamlet not to taint is mind; this is all Hamlet needs, it gives Hamlet complete freedom to decide to do exactly what he thinks is appropriate.

Technical aside: How does the ghost know that his wife was committing adultery? For if he knew it at the time, he could have Cladius's head chopped off; was the ghost eaves dropping on Cladius and Gertrude after King Hamlet died?

At year zero, King Hamlet dies. We eventually learn, if we believe we have read the play properly, that King Claudius actually murdered the former King Hamlet.

Also in year zero, perhaps one week later if communications were fast enough, Hamlet learns of his father's death.

Perhaps in another week Hamlet returns to Denmark.

Hamlet may or may not have attended his father's funeral. Whether he did or not may have no important status in the play. But, it seems to me he did:
Hamlet: I.ii: "A little month, or ere those shoes were old / With which she follow'd my poor father's body, / Like Niobe, all tears -- why, she --"

Now, here is where I become much less certain, because I cannot find a reference to this event in the text. When Hamlet returned to Denmark after hearing of his father's death, was Claudius already the new king? Or did Claudius subsequently become king? Perhaps it is not important?

But, I take it, prior to I.ii: "Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother's death," and even perhaps perior to I.i: "Who's there?" Claudius was already King, for who else might make the executive decision that Denmark should arm for war against the threat of young Fortinbras from Norway? That is, I will assume that Denmark demands a male King and that Claudius was elected King.

So, is it fair to say that sometime after King Hamlet's death and some time prior to I.i or I.ii, Claudius was made King (but had not yet married Gertrude)? I will assume so.

For now, until I hear otherwise, let it be assumed that Claudius became King before Hamlet ever returned to Denmark.

Hamlet, at the very least, was doing two things when we returned to Denmark:
1: Mourning is father's death.
2: Initiating a romantic interaction with Ophelia.

So, we might note that Hamlet appeared "normal" during this time period. He could undergo the stressors of his father's death, the loss of the crown to Claudius, and at the same time, he could initiate a romance with Ophelia.

Let's say that Hamlet's romantic overtures to Ophelia lasted about one month. We might say one month approximately, because Hamlet says, "nay, not so much, not two ... and yet within a month." Even though we are aware that there might be a two week lag from the death of King Hamlet and prince Hamlet arriving in Denmark, in which case Hamlet's romance with Ophelia would only be two weeks. But, let's say, in general, it was one month (but perhaps it really was 1.5 months).

Now, when we get to I.ii, this appears to be the wedding day where King Claudius marries Gertrude. That is, my interpretation of the text given Arden Shakepspeare by Harold Jenkins, suggests to me that I.ii is definitely a marriage and not a corronation.

Hamlet's reaction is also given in I.ii: "O that this too too sullied flesh would melt, ..." So, we have a form of depressed expression from Hamlet, and his speach tends to focus only on his mother's hasty marriage. Presumably his mother might have married the Castle Chef, for example, and Hamlet would have been just as depressed. For it appears that her marrying Hamlet's uncle is not itself considered by Hamlet to be a huge deal. The focus, again, seeming to be upon his mother.

This marriage, then, is the first real stressor which starts to bend Hamlet.

In I.iii, Laertes and Polonius reveal that they are aware of some romantic interaction occuring between Ophelia and Hamlet. And, we have guessed or arbitrarily stated that this romance has been going on for one month. From this point in the play, Ophelia repulses any and all romantic overtures from Hamlet:

II.i
Polonius: What, have you given him any hard words of late?
Ophelia: No, my good lord, but as you did command, / I did repel his letters and denied / His access to me.

The second stressor is Hamlet's interaction with the ghost in I.v.

And so ends Act I.

Having read a bit from Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth by A. C. Bradley, Second Edition, 1905,

it appears that Act II scene one (II.i) begins two or three months after the end of act I. Where Act II opens with Polonius saying, "Give him this money and these notes, Reynaldo."

This is based on the observation that Act II and Act III and the first parts of Act IV are closely joined temporarily, and that in III.ii we have:

Hamlet: O God, your only jig-maker. ... For look you how cheerfully my mother looks and my father died within's two hours.

Ophelia: Nay, 'tis twice two months, my lord.

So, four months have passed since King Hamlet died. What did Hamlet do during this period:
1) Initially mourned his father's death.
2) Initially romanced Ophelia.

Then, about one month later, Hamlet's mother marries and Hamlet meets the ghost. And, also, proximate with this time, Ophelia rejects any more romantic overtures from Hamlet.

So, for the remaining three months out of these four, what has Hamlet been doing? Let's say it like this, Hamlet is being understood by the court, both Polonius, the King, and the Queen, as having gone mad (even though this period is not literally acted out on the stage). And, this perceived understanding of the court occurs before the opening of Act II, scene one.

It is roughly three months after Ophelia rejected all advances from Hamlet that Hamlet suddenly appears in her chamber, wherein Ophelia reports to her father (II.i): "O my lord, my lord, I have been so affrighted."

Act IV, scene four ends like this: "O, from this time forth My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth."

Then again, there is a pause of some number of weeks (or perhaps days). During this period, Hamlet is sailing to England, his ship is assaulted by pirates, Hamlet boards the pirate ship, and Hamlet returns to Denmark.

After this some number of weeks or some number of days, Act IV, scene five opens. And there is generally temporal continuity until the end of the play.

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

One correction to my second outline draft:

Interestingly enough, the grave digger started his first day of employment on the very day prince Hamlet was born (and this grave digger has held his job for 30 years):

Hamlet: Upon what ground?
Clown: Why, here in Denmark. I have been sexton here, man and boy, thiry years.

[Willedever]

On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 9:17:09 AM UTC-6, craigshoemake...@gmail.com wrote:
> One correction to my second outline draft:
>
> Interestingly enough, the grave digger
> started his first day of employment on

> the very day prince Hamlet was born ...


That's incorrect. The Clown Sexton uses the phrase "of the days of the year" which is a reference to calendar dates. He then continues to use "day" in the sense of "date."

The Clown means Hamlet's birthday and King Hamlet's victory over Fortinbrasse are observed on the same date, e.g. March 17.

[Willedever]

Slight correction:

The Clown Sexton's exact phrase is "of the days in the year"

See

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Scene_19#19-119

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Concerning Hamlet's age.

Let's initially assume that Hamlet's age is from 16 years old to 35 years old.

From http://www.quartos.org

and assuming I have used this web site correctly and selected the second quarto, and then viewed a photocopy of the actual text, we have:

Hamlet: Vpon what ground?
Clown: Why here in Denmark; I have been Sexton here man and boy thirty years.

So, at this stage, it appears to me that the grave digger has had his job there thirty years.

Now, let me try not to prove the exact age of Hamlet, but to suggest that we can determine Hamlet's minimum age.

From Arden edited by Harold Jenkins:

Clown: ... Here's a skull now hath lien i'th' earth three and twhenty years.
Hamlet: Whose was it?
...
Clown: ... This same skull, sir, was Yorick's skull, the King's jester.

Now, let's assume, although I do not assume it, but let's assume that the grave digger has no idea whose skull it is. However, Hamlet does not contradict the grave digger's assertion that Yorick has been dead for 23 years.

Given this:

Hamlet: ... He hath bore me on his back a thousand times, ...

it would appear that Hamlet must be at least 23 years old. And, since he has to remember having been born on Yorick's back, let's say we was five years old, so that Hamlet's minimum age is about 28 years old, maybe 27 years old.

For me to argue Hamlet's exact age may be more difficult. I will have some parsing and elementary logic to look to. Not to mention that me, being born in the 20th century, often innocently miscontrue Shakespeare's simplest meanings. But, perhaps in a future posting I will attempt to "argue" the point, even though I may not be skilled enough to do so or not knowledgable enough about Shakespeare's use of language to do so. But, it might be a fun exercise.

Thanks,
Craig

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

.

[Willedever]

Hamlet is 16 years old. The Clown Sexton is "lying in the earth" when he speaks of the skull being there 23 years. The way the Clown throws skulls around, he doesn't know which is which. He's making that up.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Here is a third draft of a time line and time gaps within the play, Hamlet.

The previous drafts functioned as an initial template of a time line with time gaps.

This third draft now starts to incorporate a character's (and the audience's) elementary awareness along the time line.

Also, this draft starts to add the notion of words and actions by Hamlet (and perhaps others) that represent a fogging of reality; for instance, if we were to assume that Gertrude's over hasty marriage and Hamlet's interaction with the ghost in effect pours poison into Hamlet's ears concerning women, this could lead to a fogging of reality with respect to how Hamlet interacts with Ophelia and his mother, it could result in words or actions which change in some way the plot and course of the play.

This is not meant to be a definitive outline which every one in the world is expected to agree with, for I believe that would be impossible. Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading and much appreciated receiving other peoples views which I then considered. If you feel any other errors exist, as it is well known that I can easily mis-read and misunderstand Shakespeare, please let me know so that I may futher consider your ideas.

This outline only considers information from Quarto 2, the First Folio, or their combination, depending on what text I am reading at the time.

----------------------
Before the Play Begins
----------------------

Let year zero be a relative year equal to the year in which King Hamlet died.

In approximately year -30, young prince Hamlet was born. And also during this year, or actually the same day prince Hamlet was born, King Hamlet killed King Norway's brother, presumably, I take it, in a fair fight or battle; that is, King Hamlet did not murder King Norway's brother. Fortanbras is the son of King Norway's brother, and obviously is of the same approximate age as Hamlet.

Sometime prior to year zero, Hamlet is in Wittenburg studying, and Laertes is in France. Where exactly Hamlet was when his father died may or may not be important; it depends on what aspects of the play one might be considering. I would say that in general where Hamlet was at this moment is not overly important. I will simply assume that he was in Wittenburg studying, but can change my mind if some point in the play suggests other alternatives and other ways to look at the play.

Also, Hamlet at this time has no romantic relationship with Ophelia that is supported by any evidence given in the play. That is, Shakespeare is silent on this topic.

Based upon the testimony of King Hamlet's ghost, Claudius was an adulterer; presumably, if I were to parse the ghost's speech enough, I would find that specifically Claudius was having sex with King Hamlet's wife, Gertrude, prior to King Hamlet dying. So, here is the text, and it seems to be contained at the minimum in one line of the Ghost's text:

Hamlet: O my prophetic soul! My Uncle!
Ghost: Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast, ...

What we are interested in is understanding the phrase so that we can hopefully understand the words that Hamlet is hearing. Obviously, Hamlet will have issues dealing with women in the play, so we need to understand what the ghost is saying to Hamlet; and, it appears to me that the ghost is unequivocally stating that Gertrude committed adultery with Claudius (though the phrase treats Claudius as the noun) before King Hamlet died.

Whether the ghost is a good ghost or a demon is not known to us; we will probably be more interested in what Hamlet feels and thinks, and how Hamlet interprets the situation. Certainly, as pretains to women, the ghost, good or bad, is pouring poison into Hamlet's ears concerning women. I personally believe the ghost is a good ghost, but like all of the characters in the play, is not perfect. The ghost seems to have these imperfections:
(1) Attempting revenge while he is trying to purge himself of sins.
(2) Talking way too much, that is, giving Hamlet "way to much information" I think the phrase goes, about Gertrude; that is, the ghost is ranting about his unfaithful wife instead of sticking to the topic at hand: his murder.

The ghost does say something I find quite good in that he tells Hamlet not to taint is mind; this is all Hamlet needs, it gives Hamlet complete freedom to decide to do exactly what he thinks is appropriate.

Technical aside: How does the ghost know that his wife was committing adultery? For if he knew it at the time, he could have Cladius's head chopped off; was the ghost eaves dropping on Cladius and Gertrude after King Hamlet died?

At year zero, King Hamlet dies. We eventually learn, if we believe we have read the play properly, that King Claudius actually murdered the former King Hamlet.

Also in year zero, perhaps one week later if communications were fast enough, Hamlet learns of his father's death.

Perhaps in another week Hamlet returns to Denmark.

Hamlet may or may not have attended his father's funeral. Whether he did or not may have no important status in the play. But, it seems to me he did:
Hamlet: I.ii: "A little month, or ere those shoes were old / With which she follow'd my poor father's body, / Like Niobe, all tears -- why, she --"

Now, here is where I become much less certain, because I cannot find a reference to this event in the text. When Hamlet returned to Denmark after hearing of his father's death, was Claudius already the new king? Or did Claudius subsequently become king? Perhaps it is not important?

But, I take it, prior to I.ii: "Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother's death," and even perhaps perior to I.i: "Who's there?" Claudius was already King, for who else might make the executive decision that Denmark should arm for war against the threat of young Fortinbras from Norway? That is, I will assume that Denmark demands a male King and that Claudius was elected King.

So, is it fair to say that sometime after King Hamlet's death and some time prior to I.i or I.ii, Claudius was made King (but had not yet married Gertrude)? I will assume so.

For now, until I hear otherwise, let it be assumed that Claudius became King before Hamlet ever returned to Denmark.

Hamlet, at the very least, was doing two things when he returned to Denmark:

1: Mourning is father's death.
2: Initiating a romantic interaction with Ophelia.

So, we might note that Hamlet appeared "normal" during this time period. He could undergo the stressors of his father's death, the loss of the crown to Claudius, and at the same time, he could initiate a romance with Ophelia.

Let's say that Hamlet's romantic overtures to Ophelia lasted about one month. We might say one month approximately, because Hamlet says, "nay, not so much, not two ... and yet within a month." Even though we are aware that there might be a two week lag from the death of King Hamlet and prince Hamlet arriving in Denmark, in which case Hamlet's romance with Ophelia would only be two weeks. But, let's say, in general, it was one month (but perhaps it really was 1.5 months).

------------------------------------------
The Play Begins (action is shown on stage)
------------------------------------------

--------------
Act I, Scene I
--------------

When this scene ends, the audience has seen a ghost enter onto the stage; and, Horatio and two other castle guards have seen the ghost enter onto the stage.

---------------
Act I, Scene II
---------------

Now, when we get to I.ii, this appears to be the wedding day where King Claudius marries Gertrude. That is, my interpretation of the text given Arden Shakepspeare by Harold Jenkins, suggests to me that I.ii is definitely a marriage and not a corronation.

Hamlet's reaction is also given in I.ii: "O that this too too sullied flesh would melt, ..." So, we have a form of depressed expression from Hamlet, and his speach tends to focus only on his mother's hasty marriage. Presumably his mother might have married the Castle Chef, for example, and Hamlet would have been just as depressed. For it appears that her marrying Hamlet's uncle is not itself considered by Hamlet to be a huge deal. The focus, again, seeming to be upon his mother.

This marriage, then, is the first real stressor which starts to bend Hamlet.

When this scene ends, the audience is aware that Hamlet seems depressed; I, at this stage of the analysis, personally emphasize that this depressed state is due to Gertrude's over hasty marriage (and not whom she married). We see a first weakness in Hamlet. I believe that this emotional weakness which Hamlet displays will be aggrevated later when Hamlet meets and talks to the ghost himself, and the ghost roundly and unequivocably states, in effect, that Gertrude was having a sexual affair prior to King Hamlet having died.

Horatio and the two guards inform Hamlet of the ghost they saw.

----------------
Act I, Scene III
----------------

In I.iii, Laertes and Polonius reveal that they are aware of some romantic interaction occuring between Ophelia and Hamlet. And, we have guessed or arbitrarily stated that this romance has been going on for one month. From this point in the play, Ophelia repulses any and all romantic overtures from Hamlet:

II.i
Polonius: What, have you given him any hard words of late?
Ophelia: No, my good lord, but as you did command, / I did repel his letters and denied / His access to me.

When this scene ends, the audience knows that Polonius is the shaker and mover behind the action of Ophelia repulsing Hamlet's future romantic overtures. We are also aware that Ophelia had to choose which path to take: to disobey or obey her father; Ophelia expresses that she will obey her father.

---------------
Act I, Scene IV
---------------

Hamlet, Harotio, and one or two guards see the ghost.

--------------
Act I, Scene V
--------------

Hamlet alone speaks with the ghost.

The second stressor is Hamlet's interaction with the ghost in I.v.

Depending on what degree Hamlet believes the ghost, Hamlet now knows more information than any other living person in the play could possible expect Hamlet to have knowledge of:
* His mother's infidelity in her previous marriage to King Hamlet.
* Claudius's murder of King Hamlet.

This seems to me an unusual way to play with multiple levels of awareness in the play; which is not to say that doing so is in any way bad or weak on Shakespeare's part. But, in general, although not always, when one character knows more about some matter than another, that character truly knows more about it; but, in this case in Hamlet, Hamlet suspects or strongly suspects, and he may not be one hundred percent sure about what he believes.

Even though, as we will see, Hamlet is not one hundred percent sure about whether Claudius murdered King Hamlet, Hamlet will eventually stumble upon a way to try to become more certain.

However, interestingly enough, it would equally follow that Hamlet cannot be one hundred percent sure about his mother's infidelity to King Hamlet. Yet, as an initial guess or assumption on my part, Hamlet's body's emotions and reactions sometimes react to this "poisonous information about women" as if it were one hundred percent accurate; that is, during a future interaction with Ophelia, this "poison" probably is felt within him at some point or points within this future conversation with Ophelia (act III, scene I, line 88 forward).

And so ends Act I.






Having read a bit from Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth by A. C. Bradley, Second Edition, 1905,

it appears that Act II scene one (II.i) begins two or three months after the end of act I. Where Act II opens with Polonius saying, "Give him this money and these notes, Reynaldo."

This is based on the observation that Act II and Act III and the first parts of Act IV are closely joined temporarily, and that in III.ii we have:

Hamlet: O God, your only jig-maker. ... For look you how cheerfully my mother looks and my father died within's two hours.

Ophelia: Nay, 'tis twice two months, my lord.

So, four months have passed since King Hamlet died. What did Hamlet do during this period:
1) Initially mourned his father's death.
2) Initially romanced Ophelia.

Then, about one month later, Hamlet's mother marries and Hamlet meets the ghost. And, also, proximate with this time, Ophelia rejects any more romantic overtures from Hamlet.

So, for the remaining three months out of these four, what has Hamlet been doing? Let's say it like this, Hamlet is being understood by the court, both Polonius, the King, and the Queen, (and Ophelia?), as having gone mad (even though this period is not literally acted out on the stage). And, this perceived understanding of the court occurs before the opening of Act II, scene one.

Furthermore, I believe we can assume that Hamlet is aware that he is being perceived as insane by the court.

Also, when Ophelia rejects any further romantic overtures from Hamlet, might we assume that Ophelia would tell Hamlet why she is rejecting him? That is, all she need add is that she is doing what her father demanded of her? I don't know, because at this time I cannot find (or have not looked for) text to support this idea or contradict it. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that Ophelia would be unnecessarily cruel; so, until I find evidence in the text, I will somewhat assume that Ophelia would not hide this information from Hamlet.






---------------
Act II, Scene I
---------------

It is roughly three months after Ophelia rejected all advances from Hamlet that Hamlet suddenly appears in her chamber, wherein Ophelia reports to her father (II.i): "O my lord, my lord, I have been so affrighted."

Ophelia's description of Hamlet is not of a man in a hot passion or a rage of any sort; but, of a quiet man, subdued, sighing, and so forth.

Hamlet's interaction with Ophelia here will generate subsequent plot action. For instance, this is when Polonius suspects that he has found the cause of Hamlet's madness:

Polonius: "That hath made him mad."

At this stage, both Ophelia and Polonius believe that Hamlet has been mad recently and is mad now. Polonius believes that he now knows the cause of this madness.

----------------
Act II, Scene II
----------------

Before Polonius can report his news to the King and Queen, these two are already responding to their belief that Hamlet is mad, for they have sent for Rozencrantch and Guildenstern who arrive in act II, scene II.

Claudius:
The need we have to use you did provoke
Our hasty sending. Something have you heard
Of Hamlet's transformation ...

So, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were just now hastily sent for! Perhaps this suggests that Hamlet's pretending to be mad is relatively recent, and have not been going on for three months. Let's make this assumption and draw up a revised time line:

Revision:

So, at the opening of Act II, Scene I, four months have passed since King Hamlet died. What did Hamlet do during this period:

1) Initially mourned his father's death.
2) Initially romanced Ophelia.

Then, about one month later, Hamlet's mother marries and Hamlet meets the ghost. And, also, proximate with this time, Ophelia rejects any more romantic overtures from Hamlet.

So, for the remaining three months out of these four, what has Hamlet been doing? Let's say it like this, Hamlet is being understood by the court, both Polonius, the King, and the Queen, (and Ophelia?), as having gone mad (even though this period is not literally acted out on the stage). And, this perceived understanding of the court occurs before the opening of Act II, scene one.

But, how long was Hamlet acting mad? We, don't know. But let's say anywhere from two weeks to one month. So, there were two months in between there where Hamlet was not acting mad. He was just being Hamlet, though he was not seeing Ophelia. Perhaps Hamlet started to "gradually" show signs of madness (first a fast, and so forth).

Finally, what else was Hamlet doing when he was not pretending to be mad? Well, based upon Hamlet's own testimony, he was suffering from melancholy. Also, still morning his father's death, I would guess.

End revision.


So, at the beginning of Act II, Scene II, the King and Queen have no idea why recently (let's say within one month) Hamlet is showing signs of madness. And, they enlist Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for two reasons: to cheer up Hamlet, and to determine what the cause of Hamlet's madness might be.

Queen:
I doubt it is no other but the main,
His father's death and our o'er-hasty marriage.

Polonius eventually enters and makes the argument to the King and Queen that he believes Ophelia to be the cause of Hamlet's madness.

King: Do you think 'tis this?
Queen: It may be; very like.

Polonius reveals a plan to the King and Queen:

Polonius: At such a time I'll loose my daughter to him.

Finally, Hamlet enters and we see him clearly pretending to be mad, and there is a conversation between Hamlet and Polonius.

Eventually Rosencrantz and Guildenstern enter.

Eventually the players enter.

Hamlet hatches a plan to implement in the near future: the mouse trap.

I believe that at the end of this act, it is quite clear that Hamlet is pretending to be mad and only Hamlet knows it. Every one else, in particular Claudius, Gertrude, Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern believe Hamlet is mad but they still are not sure of what the cause is or how to cure Hamlet.

Or, perhaps only Rosencrantz and Guildenstern suspect Hamlet of a "crafty madness" which is mentioned at the beginning of the next act.






----------------
Act III, Scene I
----------------

King Claudius tells the audience that he has a past "deed" and a "heavy burden."

Gertrude and Ophelia are aware that Polonius and Claudius hide behind an arras to listen secretly.

Ophelia is standing by to be boarded eventually by Hamlet.

Hamlet begins his speech to himself and the audience: "To be, or not to be."

What motivates this speech of Hamlet's? My preliminary guess is that Hamlet knows that he will have the play within a play acted out before the King. And, that this "mouse trap" game is going to be some very dangerous business, in that the King might very well suspect that Hamlet knows of the murder. So, although I do not think Hamlet is seriously contemplating suicide, he is contemplating much danger and work ahead, and speculating about what his other choices might be.

Then follows action between Hamlet and Ophelia. At its end, Ophelia, if she was perhaps the only one who had any reason to be hopeful that Hamlet was not truly mad, by the end of this encounter expresses two things:
(1) She did love Hamlet.
(2) She now believes with certainty that Hamlet is mad.

Hamlet made one potentially dangerous remark which both Polonius and the King overheard:

Hamlet: I say we will have no mo marriage. Those that are married already -- all but one -- shall live; the rest shall keep as they are.

Do you all think that Hamlet is indirectly stating that he intends to kill King Claudius? At least one book article suggested that this is not the case. I'll need to see if I can find this article.

At any rate, after Hamlet exits, the King has his own surmise about Hamlet and Polonius has quite another! So, maybe the phrase "all but one -- shall live" was not as devastating as it might be construed by me. Maybe Claudius is becoming a little paranoid?

At any rate, the King quickly decides to send Hamlet to England to collect the tribute. Also, the King is beginning to strongly suspect that Hamlet is not mad (and this could be bad news for Hamlet):

Claudius:
...
Nor what he spake, though it lack'd form a little,
Was not like madness. ...

Now, while Claudius, Polonius, and Ophelia are still on the stage together, Polonius launches his idea for his next fishing expedition:

Polonius:
...
My lord, do as you please,
But if you hold it fit, after the play
Let his queen-mother all alone entreat him,
And I'll be plac'd, so please you, in the ear
Of all their conference. If she finds him not,
To England send him; or confine him where
Your wisdom best shall think.

As the play is authentically produced, that is, if only the stage shows the scenes Shakespeare wrote, often one can overlook that Ophelia has a tremendous amount of information. This information, particularly as given just above, would allow Ophelia to pretty easily figure out, even if Claudius refused to tell here the details, that her romantic interest, Hamlet, killed her father. Do you agree with this assessment about how much Ophelia will know about her father's death?

Of course, Ophelia could also, if she wished to attempt it and if she found it proper to do so, tell Hamlet about her father's intention to eavesdrop in Hamlet's mother's closet. But, given that Ophelia clearly at this stage thinks Hamlet is mad, and because she wants people to help Hamlet, it is unlikely she will and reveal her father's plan to Hamlet.

At this stage in the play, although I do not know with certainty, I believe that King Claudius does not intend to have Hamlet's head chopped off in England. The King clearly stated his intentions that Hamlet was to go to England to collect the tribute, and in doing so, get some fresh air.





-----------------
Act III, Scene II
-----------------

Hamlet implements the showing of the play within a play.



------------------
Act III, Scene III
------------------

The King's response to the play within a play:

Claudius (speaking to Rosencratz and Guildenstern):
I like him not, nor stands it safe with us
To let his madness range. Therefore prepare you.
I your commission will forthwith dispatch,
And he to England shall along with you.
The terms of our estate may not endure
Hazard so near us as doth hourly grow
Out of his brows.

Now, things have changed in that the King is still sending Hamlet to England, but now he will eventually give Rosencrantz and Guildenstern the commission. Originally, if there had been no play within a play, one might have thought that Hamlet would receive the commission to pick up the English tribute.

Is the King now decided to kill Hamlet? Probably, I guess; what do you think? But, Shakespeare won't show just how much motivation the King has to kill Hamlet until a little bit later when the King says to the audience, "Do it England, ..."

After Rosencrantz and Guildenstern leave the King, the King prays. Hamlet refuses to kill the King at this time.




-----------------
Act III, Scene IV
-----------------

Hamlet stabs the unseed Polonius in his mother's closet.

Whatever else transpires between Hamlet and his mother, it appears absolutely clear to me that the entrance of King Hamlet's ghost destroys completely any credibility Hamlet will have with his mother, Gertrude, in convincing her that Claudius killed King Hamlet (this assumes that in part Hamlet is making such an argument). This suggest one small thread of thought, where the busy body Polonius has some similarities to one potential aspect of the ghost of King Hamlet, he also being sometimes a busy body and trying to control things or micro manage events by suddenly appearing in Gertrude's closet (but this time, the ghost is unseen by Gertrude, where as just previously, Polonius was unseen by Hamlet).





---------------
Act IV, Scene I
---------------

I have nothing to add about this.


----------------
Act IV, Scene II
----------------

I have nothing to add about this.


-----------------
Act IV, Scene III
-----------------

Hamlet is wisked out of the castle on his way to England.

The King says to himself and the audience:

Claudius:
And England, if my love thou hold'st at aught --
...
Do it, England;
For like the hectic in my blood he rages,
And though must cure me. Till I know 'tis done,
Howe'er my haps, my joys were ne'er begun.

So, clearly, the King intends to have England chop off Hamlet's head.

Question:
Does the King during this time period in history have a good chance of carrying out this operation without Gertrude knowing what happened to Hamlet? Or, as the audience, are we so struck by the intensity of the drama we do not reflect on this point?


----------------
Act IV, Scene IV
----------------

Hamlet eventually boards the ship to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Not shown on stage: some number of days pass to allow Hamlet to sail out a few days, then board the pirate ship and sail back in a few days.



---------------
Act IV, Scene V
---------------

Ophelia goes insane. Laertes appears at Elsinore. Laertes is calmed down by the King.


----------------
Act IV, Scene VI
----------------

I have nothing to add about this.



-----------------
Act IV, Scene VII
-----------------

Claudius manipulates Laertes. Every one learns of Ophelia's death.

At the end of this scene, although we knew some of this from earlier scenes, King Claudius is clearly not telling Laertes the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

--------------
Act V, Scene I
--------------

From here on out, the levels of awareness of the characters keep a wide gap until the end of the play.

Basically, Claudius and Laertes are plotting to kill Hamlet; and, Hamlet, apparently clueless, does not suspect it (nor does the Queen Gertrude).

Interestingly enough, Laertes says nothing to warn the Queen Gertrude when she attempts to drink from the poisoned cup.

Thanks,
Craig

[Don]

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 07:38:58 -0800 (PST),
craigshoemake...@gmail.com wrote:

>Here is a third draft of a time line and time gaps within the play, Hamlet.
>
>The previous drafts functioned as an initial template of a time line with time gaps.
>
>This third draft now starts to incorporate a character's (and the audience's) elementary awareness along the time line.

(snip)

(quote)

poetic license
noun
1. license or liberty taken by a poet, prose writer, or other artist
in deviating from rule, conventional form, logic, or fact, in order to
produce a desired effect.
(unquote)

Fiction writers, not just poets, are allowed to "manage" time in ways
that stretch the imagination?

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

I meant "awareness" in this sense:

Example 1 snippet:

... This seems to me an unusual way to play with multiple levels of awareness in the play; which is not to say that doing so is in any way bad or weak on Shakespeare's part. But, in general, although not always, when one character knows more about some matter than another, that character truly knows more about it; but, in this case in Hamlet, Hamlet suspects or strongly suspects, and he may not be one hundred percent sure about what he believes. ...


Example 2 snippet:

... From here on out, the levels of awareness of the characters keep a wide gap until the end of the play. ...

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

What these gaps are caused by is quite simple.
You take a person's life (over a long period) and chop it up. Then mix it up. You then give the people in this life new names, plus add a few new ones, based on possibly true stories. You might even add bit's of other people's lives in them, doing the same again - mixing them up, changing the names.
You then hope nobody will notice it's based on them.
If you are successful (back then) you will have avoided getting your hands chopped off.
You then sit back, wait 400 years, come back as someone else and have a good laugh at the University professor's trying to understand what you have written and make sense of it.

[Willedever]

After you've written all that, Hamlet is still 16 years old.

Also, as I've already pointed out, King Hamlet's single-combat victory was on the same DATE as Hamlet's birthday. We know that from the Clown's express statement. Not the same year.

The Ghost is not the spirit of King Hamlet. Hamlet has an emotional investment in the issue, but nobody in the audience should. Don't be a sucker.

You know that devils will lie, of course.

Gertrude married Claudius, and used her political power to make him King, so that Fortinbrasse's challenge to single combat would be to Claudius and not to Hamlet. You do realize what that "message" is in Scene 2, to which Claudius refers, and why it can't be a threat of war.

It is explicit in the dialogue that Hamlet was at King Hamlet's funeral.

It is explicit in the dialogue that the royal marriage was before the coronation.

Scene 2 begins with Claudius's first day of doing the nation's business as the reigning King. (That is explicit in the dialogue, for those who can read and have any common sense.)

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi Willedever,

I have two questions for you which come from the 3rd revision above. You did not address these items in your reply, and I would be interested in your opinion.

First Question from Above
-------------------------

Hamlet made one potentially dangerous remark which both Polonius and the King overheard:

Hamlet: I say we will have no mo marriage. Those that are married already -- all but one -- shall live; the rest shall keep as they are.

Do you all think that Hamlet is indirectly stating that he intends to kill King Claudius?

At any rate, after Hamlet exits, the King has his own surmise about Hamlet and Polonius has quite another! So, maybe the phrase "all but one -- shall live" was not as devastating as it might be construed by me. Maybe Claudius is becoming a little paranoid?

Second Question from Above
--------------------------

-----------------
Act IV, Scene III
-----------------

Hamlet is wisked out of the castle on his way to England.

The King says to himself and the audience:

Claudius:
And England, if my love thou hold'st at aught --
...
Do it, England;
For like the hectic in my blood he rages,
And though must cure me. Till I know 'tis done,
Howe'er my haps, my joys were ne'er begun.

So, clearly, the King intends to have England chop off Hamlet's head.

Question:
Does the King during this time period in history have a good chance of carrying out this operation without Gertrude knowing what happened to Hamlet? Or, as the audience, are we so struck by the intensity of the drama we do not reflect on this point?

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

In the third revision above, concerning the opening of Act III, Scene I, I wrote above:

Do you all think that Hamlet is indirectly stating that he intends to kill King Claudius? At least one book article suggested that this is not the case. I'll need to see if I can find this article.

Here is the article:
From Tragic Form in Shakespeare, 1972, Princeton University Press, by Ruth Nevo;
also found in the book Modern Critical Interpretations, William Shakespeares Hamlet, edited by Harold Bloom.


Page 50 from book:

quote

It is not absolutely necessary to take "those that are married already, all but one, shall live; the rest shall keep as they are" as an overt threat to the King behind the arras, for Hamlet could be thus obliquely discharging his bosom of the perilous stuff, which is, after all, the root cause of all his agitations; and doing so in a semi-aside to the audience, who will then wonder what the King will make of it.

end quote


So, in our understanding of how the King receives these words from Hamlet, we have two options:

(1) the words are a semi-aside, which I am not altogether sure what this is, that is, does the King hear or not hear a semi-aside?

(2) the words are not an aside at all, and the King hears them. So, let's assume this case, as it seems Hamlet is all wrapped up in this conversation with Ophelia, and it seems to me that probably he will not make a "semi-aside." Then, is there enough information presented verbally in Hamlet's conversation which might make the King worried enough to on the spot, right there, decide that he is going to kill Hamlet (and not just send him for the English tribute)? Or, does Hamlet's speech contain just enough confusion so that King Claudius is still left confused, and uncertain if he is yet required to attempt to kill Hamlet?

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Here is a way of rephrasing my above question.

Hamlet knows about the Claudius's murder of King Hamlet; Claudius has no idea what Hamlet knows.

Claudius is hearing words coming out of Hamlet's mouth: such as: "all but one, shall live" and so forth.

Claudius as a murderer has to interpret these words.

Polonius, not as a murderer, also interprets them, but differently.

So, maybe it is more important to realize that it is the amazing drama of this tight rope scene, of who knows what and who doesn't know what, and who is talking full of emotion, saying things unwittingly that are potentially dangerous.

Maybe, in asking my question, it is more important to realize what dramatic excitement Shakespreare is creating by these different levels of awareness.

Still, if I may request, what do you think about Claudius: does he or doesn't he intend at this point in time to kill Hamlet?

Or, does it make most sense to just take what Claudius says at face value as true: to send Hamlet to England for the tribute?

Thanks,
Craig

Postscript:

I forgot to mention my assumptions in this scene, which I hope you will also assume in answering my question: Hamlet has no idea that anyone is watching him from behind the arras. For instance, it seems rediculous to me that Hamlet, if he knew anyone was listening, would then raise his voice and say, "all but one" et cetera.

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

The following from wikipedia.org may given us a general idea of what it meant to be elected king of Denmark:







Here is interesting information, perhaps giving "historic" details concerning this one Danish Monarch. Source: wikipedia.org.

Aside: I was actually attempting to see if any monarch as a prince attended university; but, I was unable to find any examples during the life of Shakespeare or previously.


Christian IV of Denmark (1577 - 1648)


The young king
--------------

At the death bed of Niels Kaas. The 17-year-old Christian IV receives from the dying chancellor the keys to the vault where the royal crown and sceptre are stored.


At the death of his father on 4 April 1588, Christian was just 11 years old. He succeeded to the throne, but as he was still under-age a regency council was set up to serve as the trustees of the royal power while Christian was still growing up. It was led by chancellor Niels Kaas and consisted of the Rigsraadet council members Peder Munk, Jørgen Rosenkrantz and Christopher Walkendorf. At the death of Niels Kaas in 1594, Jørgen Rosenkrantz took over leadership of the regency council. His mother Queen Dowager Sophie, just 30 years old, had wished to play a role in the government, but this was denied by the Council.

Christian continued his studies at Sorø Academy and received a good education with a reputation as a headstrong and talented student.

Coming of age and coronation
----------------------------

In 1595, the Council of the Realm decided that Christian would soon be old enough to assume personal control of the reins of government. On 17 August 1596, at the age of 19, Christian signed his haandfæstning which was an identical copy of his father's from 1559.[3]

Twelve days later, on 29 August, Christian IV was crowned at the Church of Our Lady in Copenhagen by the Bishop of Zealand, Peder Vinstrup. He was crowned with a new splendid crown made for him by Didrik Fyren in Odense assisted by the Nuremberg goldsmith Corvinius Saur in the years 1595-1596.



Thanks,
Craig

[Willedever]

Re Hamlet's "all but one shall live" line, yes, Hamlet voices it in hostility to Claudius, and Claudius does hear it as the threat that it is.

Polonius has a different point of view, so he's focusing on other statements by Hamlet. Polonius was, in particular, expecting Hamlet to say he loved Ophelia, with Claudius listening -- which would justify Polonius insisting that Claudius must get involved to make Hamlet marry Ophelia.

Claudius was listening mainly to judge whether Hamlet is a threat to him.

Polonius was listening mainly with the goal of getting his daughter married to the Prince.

About Claudius's intent of having Hamlet executed in England, Claudius plans to get that past Gertrude by blaming R & G.

It doesn't occur to R&G that their only utility for Claudius is in connection with Hamlet. So, when R&G return with the awful news that the English executed Hamlet, who's Claudius going to blame? He most certainly will not take the blame himself.

That is what Claudius is planning at the time he sends R&G to England with Hamlet. He's going to use his King's power to blame them -- for both the death of Hamlet, and non-payment of the tribute.

R&G are the patsies Claudius is setting up for execution when they return. He's going to accuse them of both murder and theft, of the tribute, make sure the verdict is "guilty," and cut their heads off.

As King, Claudius has very substantial power over official investigations, to make them turn out as he pleases.

[Willedever]

Hamlet's "all but one shall live" is in no way an aside, it is spoken emphatically and angrily to Ophelia. Claudius hears it as well as she does, and as well as the audience does.

It appears that Claudius's first thought is only to get Hamlet far away from him for some period of time. The idea of making sure Hamlet never returns appears to occur to Claudius after he flees the Mousetrap play, and his thinking has developed further.

[Willedever]

Hamlet knows perfectly well that Claudius and Polonius are eavesdropping, behind tha arras. He does not have to see them to know it, nor does he have to hear them plotting to know it.

Ophelia the same as told Hamlet.

It takes a while to go through and explain, but certainly Hamlet knows. He couldn't miss it.

Hamlet speaks as he does, during the passage, because he has so badly lost his temper, due to what he thinks is going on. (Hamlet thinks Ophelia is dumping him because she has become Claudius's courtesan. Hamlet thinks Claudius is behind the arras snickering up his sleeve, enjoying Hamlet's humiliation as Ophelia dumps him under Claudius's orders.)

Hamlet's knowledge of the presence of Claudius and Polonius, behind the arras, is intrinsic to the Scene dialogue. The problem is that Hamlet badly mistakes WHY they're eavesdropping.

In fact, Polonius set it up in an effort to get his daughter married to the Prince.

However, based on what he sees and hears, Hamlet concludes that Claudius set it up to humiliate Hamlet and laugh at him, after buying off Ophelia (who Hamlet then believes, in a horribly mistaken conclusion, to be a wily prostitute who had Hamlet completely fooled. That's why Hamlet gets so angry, he thinks it's all about playing him for a sucker and laughing at him.)

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Willedever wrote in part:

About Claudius's intent of having Hamlet executed in England, Claudius plans to get that past Gertrude by blaming R & G.

It doesn't occur to R&G that their only utility for Claudius is in connection with Hamlet. So, when R&G return with the awful news that the English executed Hamlet, who's Claudius going to blame? He most certainly will not take the blame himself.

That is what Claudius is planning at the time he sends R&G to England with Hamlet. He's going to use his King's power to blame them -- for both the death of Hamlet, and non-payment of the tribute.

R&G are the patsies Claudius is setting up for execution when they return. He's going to accuse them of both murder and theft, of the tribute, make sure the verdict is "guilty," and cut their heads off.

As King, Claudius has very substantial power over official investigations, to make them turn out as he pleases.

End quote from Willedever in part


Hi Willedever and everyone,

I like the background story you give here. It is believable.


However, I would like to investigate an avenue wherein King Claudius does not want to emotionally harm his wife, Gertrude.

Is there any way, in your tactical mind and understanding of this era, that King Claudius can kill Hamlet in England without letting Queen Gertrude know that Hamlet is dead?

Please keep in mind that at the end of the play, the only reason, it appears, that the English announce publicly the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is because there is no King to report to.

That is, if the English came to Denmark to give a report, and King Claudius was alive, assume that King Claudius would converse with these Englishmen in private.

So, can King Claudius keep the death of Hamlet a secret from Queen Gertrude? That, for me personally, is an important question to my understanding of King Claudius.

Thanks for your previous responses,
Craig

[Willedever]

You are kidding me.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi Willedever and everyone,

Willedever, your response was "You are kidding me."

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Perhaps two of the following:
(1) I am kidding you in asking you a contrived question in which I only pretend to know the answer, or
(2) You are stating that it is impossible to have Hamlet killed in England such that Queen Gertrude will never find out about it.

Could you please clarify your response?

Willedever and everyone:

The question is of some import to understand King Claudius's position when he reveals to the audience that he intends for England to kill Hamlet. This is because earlier, King Claudius realizes that he is emotionally connected to Queen Gertrude and that Queen Gertrude is emotionally connected to her son, Prince Hamlet. So, it would seem to me, that if King Claudius is unable to kill Hamlet secretly, that is, where Hamlet simply dissapears, King Claudius's position is far from optimal, since he will surely hurt Queen Gertrude. But, if he is able to make Hamlet "disappear" and no one has any hint that Hamlet is dead, then King Claudius's plan is more optimal and harms Queen Gertrude less.

So, that is what I am asking, and I address the question to those who have a intimate knowledge of how this killing of Hamlet might work for the time period 1100 through 1600.

I have little knowledge of the time period, but what little I have stumbled upon in my spare time:

(1) Attilla the Hun killed his elder brother so he would become king; or so it is believed. But, I doubt Attilla told anyone his elder brother was dead; instead, his elder brother simply "vanished."

(2) At another part of history, and I forget who these people were, but let's called them in modern day terms "French" and "German", perhaps this is the year 1,000 AD or so, I can't recall, here is what happened: the "French" king talked with the "German" prince and convinced the "German" prince to kill his father, the "German" King. The "German" prince hired murderes and murdered his father in secret. In other words, the "German" King "vanished." Next, the "French" King killed the "German" prince, thus, this "German" prince "vanished." Finally, the "French" king spoke to the Germans about the loss of their King and Prince, and saying that he felt sorry for their loss, offered his services as their king as well; and, the "Germans" accepted him as their king as well.


So, in short, is it technically possible for Prince Hamlet to be killed secretly in England wherein Hamlet just vanishes? Wherein Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are unaware of what happened, and so is everyone else unaware, except the King of England, the English executioner who cut off Hamlet's head, and King Claudius.



Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Another way of stating my question is that I am trying to create a "tragic arc" for King Claudius. And, my question, which is quite specific, and does not require much "literally interpretation" will feed into my understanding of the play.

For example, let's consider the story of Claudius as a tragedy. We know, for example, that this King Claudius tragedy unfolds within the context of the Prince Hamlet tragedy.

The King Claudius tragedy occurs due to the "marshmallow effect." That is, his desires to be King and then to have Gertrude as his wife overwhelm him. Once he has initially obtained what he thinks he desires, the Kingship and Gertrude, other interruptions occur and stand in the way of his happiness.

These interruptions, which are personified in Hamlet having met his father's ghost, start to destroy King Claudius's desire for happiness.

So, I am trying to trace King Claudius. In particular, you will note that King Claudius has some similarities to Hamlet, in that both, on the spur of the moment, make decisions. For example, King Claudius on the spur of the moment decides to send Hamlet to England to receive the tribute (after he and Polonius spy on Hamlet and Ophelia).

In fact, almost everything King Claudius does is improvised, right up until the point in the play where he declares that England should "do it."

I am trying to measure how much control King Claudius has at two points in the play. The first, involves my question, and has to do with Claudius making his first "compromise" for happiness; and, so, it is natural to ask, can Claudius optimize his position, and have Hamlet "disappear."

The second point in the arc, is very straight forward because we as the audience can see King Claudius talking with Laertes: at this point in the play, King Claudius is willing to "compromise" his happiness to such an extend that Queen Gertrude will be aware that Hamlet has died, but such that no fault will show upon King Claudius or Laertes.

Although I certainly would like to hear answers to my simple question from historical experts, I also would certainly like to here answers by the general public as well:

Question:

When King Claudius sends Hamlet to England, and has given the undisclosed orders to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, that Hamlet should be killed in England, shriving time not allowed, can this killing of Hamlet be kept secret from the Queen Gertrude?

Thanks,
Craig

[Willedever]

Tell me, Craig, is English your native language? Also, is Earth your native planet?

Have you read 'Hamlet?' All the way through? Not skipping any passages? Nor Scenes? Tell the truth.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi Willedever,

I do not understand your reply nor how your reply relates to my question.

Question:

When King Claudius sends Hamlet to England, and has given the undisclosed orders to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, that Hamlet should be killed in England, shriving time not allowed, can this killing of Hamlet be kept secret from the Queen Gertrude?

The fact that I may come to conclusions about the play which differ from your conclusions strikes me as irrelevant. I certainly would be interested in your reply, as I would from any one else.

Having read a fair amount of Hamlet criticism recently, and given that there can be such a wide and differing approach to the play, for people to "combat" each other about how they interpret the play seems to me rather silly. If you, having historical knowledge, can answer my question, I certainly would like to here it, as my question requires absolutely no knowledge of literary interpretation (and, thus, no basis for us to argue). My question is very simple; in my free, available time, I am reading books about the middle ages, but, as might not surprise anyone, I certaintly have not yet stumbled upon the answer to my specific question.

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Here is my preliminary "arc" concerning the tragedy of King Claudius which occurs within the tragedy of Prince Hamlet (which occurs within the tragedy of King Hamlet); as well, as other tragedies occuring within these principal arcs: Polonius, Ophelia, and Queen Gertrude.

Please keep in mind that as I have mentioned in other posts, any view or opinions I have is not meant to exlude the existence of other opinions. For instance, in the opening, I will state that the primary motivation of King Claudius is to have a happy family with Hamlet as is son. This does not exclude other parallel views that King Claudius to some extent also wants to keep Hamlet in Denmark so that he can watch him. But, maybe the two ideas do conflict too much. At any rate, I hope you understand that I never intend to obstruct other's view of the play, while I may simultaneously assert, at least at this time, my own view.

So, as concerns King Claudius.

The play opens with King Claudius hoping that after he has murdered his brother, King Hamlet, and married the queen mother Gertrude, that life will be just fine, and that he will have a happy family and Hamlet will be his son.

This, of course, doesn't happen because Hamlet meets his father's ghost, King Hamlet.

King Claudius's hope for happiness becomes disrupted. His very first action is to resolve spontaneously to send Hamlet to England to receive the tribute. A minor decision, but still an interruption.

Later in the play, after King Claudius has witnessed the performace of Hamlet's "The Moust Trap," King Claudius resolves to send Hamlet to England to be killed by England (or, if you like, he makes this decision after he learns that Polonius has been killed). Until I hear otherwise, let us assume that Hamlet will just disappear, and that Queen Gertrude will not know that Hamlet has been killed. Afterall, who would suspect such an action? (Remembering that the entrace of King Hamlet's ghost in the scene between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude destroys Hamlet's credibility).

So, at this stage, King Claudius makes a significant concession of his happiness. He no longer is a part of a happy family, of course, and furthermore, he is killing Hamlet and obscuring this information from Queen Gertrude.

When King Claudius is talking privately with Laertes, at some point in this conversaion, he says, in effect, "you will hear more later." But, then Hamlet's letters arrive. Now the King spontaneously (and having to judge the reaction of Laertes) decides to kill Hamlet openly, such that no fault falls upon King Claudius nor Laertes. Surely, we are getting farther and farther removed from the initial happy family King Claudius was hoping for.

During the fencing match between Hamlet and Laertes, King Claudius makes a further, much more far reaching concession in that he allows Queen Gertrude to drink from the poisonous cup.

Finally, King Claudius, after Queen Gertrude dies, is left only with himself as king, no family, no beautiful Gertrude that he loves; and in this state his life and his rank as king are taken from him.

So, that is the tragic arc of King Claudius. He makes one concession after another. At least, that is my theory.

I should note, that it was only with the Kenneth Branagh production of Hamlet with Jacobi as King Claudius, that I really started to understand King Claudius. Note, for example, that when Queen Gertrude drinks of the poisonous cup, Jacobi as King Claudius seems to almost cry. Surely, he could have stopped Gertrude, but he makes a concession, losing now his love and wife.

So, althought the Branagh production has a few weaknesses, and maybe even a few big weaknesses, I truly love the way Jacobi played King Claudius, and this brought out a whole new dimension of the play I had never experienced before.

Thanks,
Craig

[Willedever]

Look, kid, R&G go to England with Hamlet. Annybody who has read the play knows that.

And you appear to br totally ignorant of that explicit fact.

Claudius plans that R&G will return without Hamlet. Because Hamlet will be dead. Do you follow?

And you're wondering if maybe there's some way Gertrude won't notice her son isn't with R&G upon their return.

That is nothing but a) ignorant of the play, or, b) moronic.

Thus, I inquire if you've read the play. The question arises, in a way that cannot be ignored.

Yes, kid, Gertrude will notice. Thus, Claudius has to have something in mind, for when R&G return without Hamlet. And at that point, he is through with R&G. He no longer needs them. Do you follow where this inevitably leads?

Somebody is going to get blamed for Hamlet's death. Do you imagine that Claudius is going to take the blame, when R&G are so handy?

We are not talking about differences of opinion, on points where reasonable men may reasonably differ.

We are talking about EXPLICIT STATEMENTS in the dialogue. Of which you seem to be ignorant.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[Willedever]

Craig, you would be wise to stop tossing phrases around just because they appear in some context in 'Hamlet.'

You wrote that King Claudius has "married the queen mother Gertrude."

Look up "queen mother." It refers to the MOTHER of the reigning monarch.

You wrote that Gertrude was Claudius's mother.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[Willedever]

Additionally,

The Ghost is not the spirit of King Hamlet. That notion was never anything but historically oblivious and semiliterate.

Your statement of Claudius's first action is IGNORANT.

You are wrong, because you have not read the play.

Claudius's first official act is to send a diplomatic mission to NORWAY.

Idiot.

If you're going to try to talk about the play, READ IT.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

Also, as far as Gertrude drinking from the poisoned cup, tell me, Craig, have you ever read 'Hamlet?" Tell the truth.

Craig, it is EXPLICIT in the dialogue that Claudius DOES NOT "allow" Gertrude to drink. He tells her not to, but she does.

Again, Craig, that is EXPLICITLY STATED in the dialogue. As can be seen by anybody who has READ it.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

By the way, Claudius insinuates to Laertes in Scene 18 that he no longer loves Gertrude. Of course a person would have to READ the play to know that.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi Willedever,

I take it that your response to the following question:

Question:

When King Claudius sends Hamlet to England, and has given the undisclosed orders to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, that Hamlet should be killed in England, shriving time not allowed, can this killing of Hamlet be kept secret from the Queen Gertrude?

is that it is absolutely impossible for King Claudius to obscure the death of Hamlet from Queen Gertrude.

To round out my question a little, please remember that Hamlet is considered mad. So, it might not be too difficult to kill Hamlet in secret, and then have King Claudius say to Gertrude in effect: well, your son was mad, and now nobody knows where he is.

The reason King Claudius would do this is because he does not want to harm Queen Gertrude; and, by not harming Queen Gergrude, King Claudius maximizes his happiness (at least relatively).

Remember, I am not arguing with you, I am soliciting opinions about whether my question is feasible.

Aside: if I were Rosencrantz or Guildenstern, and I knew that King Hamlet had been killed, I may decide not to return to Denmark.

So, thanks Willedever for your opinion, and I look forward, over time, to hearing other people's opinions concerning whether my question is feasible.

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

King Claudius could certaintly have stopped Queen Gertrude from drinking the poison; all he had to do is tell Gertrude that he poisoned the drink himself. Of course, King Claudius will not do this, and thus, he makes a concession to his happiness.

As concerns Claudius's statement in Act IV, scene VII:

King (approximately line 109):
Not that I think you did not love your father, ...


I personally do not interpret this in any way to be King Claudius reflecting upon his own love for Queen Gertrude.

Of course, it is obvious, that on this point you and I will disagree. And, at this time, I see no reason to "make an argument." I am perfectly content to understand that many people, over hundreds of years, people very intelligent and able to express themselves, might disagree or agree with me. And, so, that is how it is with literature. I am also aware, although I consider it unlikely on this particular point, that my own opinions can change over time, as I hear other people's opinions and they state their reasoning.

I also have not yet determined why you write with such an unreasonable and impolite demeaner. I suspect that you simply are attempting to draw attention to yourself so that people will visit your web site; but, I can't be sure about this, because the way you write quite quickly destroys any credibility you might think you have. If you goal is to have people read your web site, I might suggest to you that you will gain a wider audience if were more polite and seemed more logical and kind and open minded.


Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Here is a quote from John W. Kennedy, assuming that I have used this news group correctly and have quoted him correctly:

The action now is at the Facebook group "Oxfraud" and the website that goes with it.
end quote


Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Here is a slight reworking of my preliminary "arc" concerning the tragedy of King Claudius.

Adjunct Idea
------------

But, first, here is an adjunct idea: family dysfunctionality. Surely, one would think, that over at least the past one hundred and thirty years or so, somebody would have stumbled upon this idea in the Hamlet play; and, I would imagine that somebody already has; but, I do not believe I have ever seen this idea before.

The Hamlet play could be considered the most important play to hit the big screen (or your local stage) concerning a dysfunctional family: King Claudius, Queen Gertrude, and Prince Hamlet.

This might account for why some writers see the numbers "2" and "1" in the play a lot; also, why Hamlet is often written about as binding together two (King Claudius and Queen Gertrude) as one.

Here is a rather spooky passage in what I call the horror scene (the sceen between Hamlet and Gertrude):

Act III, Scene IV:
about line 146:
Hamlet:
... Mother, for love of grace,
Lay not that flattering unction to your soul,
That not your trespass but my madness speaks.

Note, also, how previous to this point Gertrude does not see anything:

Act III, Scene IV:
about line 131:
Queen: To whom do you speak this?
Hamlet: Do you see nothing there?
Queen: Nothing at all; yet all that is I see.
Hamlet: Nor did you nothing hear?
Queen: No, nothing but ourselves.
Hamlet: Why, look you there, ...

If there are psychologist in this news group, could the above lines be a symbol or representation of what would actually happen in a dysfunctional family? That is, where one of the parent figures, in this case Gertrude, is completely blind to the damage being done to her child by the other spouse?



Primary Idea
------------

Please keep in mind that as I have mentioned in other posts, any view or opinions I have is not meant to exlude the existence of other opinions. For instance, in the opening, I will state that the primary motivation of King Claudius is to have a happy family with Hamlet as is son. This does not exclude other parallel views that King Claudius to some extent also wants to keep Hamlet in Denmark so that he can watch him. But, maybe the two ideas do conflict too much. At any rate, I hope you understand that I never intend to obstruct other's view of the play, while I may simultaneously assert, at least at this time, my own view.

To say it another way, Shakespeare's plays are often like a symphony; the person experiencing the play can absorb different themes, if you will, simultaneosly; thus, there is no reason to insist that Shakespeare is one-dimensional, and that only one view into the play is possible, for to do so would be to flatten and cheapen the play experience.

So, as concerns King Claudius.

The play opens with King Claudius hoping that after he has murdered his brother, King Hamlet, and married the queen mother Gertrude, that life will be just fine, and that he will have a happy family and Hamlet will be his son.

This, of course, doesn't happen because Hamlet believes that he has met his father's ghost, King Hamlet.

King Claudius's hope for happiness becomes disrupted. Within the thread of thought of this article, King Claudius's very first action is to resolve spontaneously to send Hamlet to England to receive the tribute (after he and Polonius spied upon Hamlet and Ophelia). A minor decision, but still an interruption.

Later in the play, after King Claudius has witnessed the performace of Hamlet's "The Mouse Trap," King Claudius resolves to send Hamlet to England to be killed by England (or, if you like, he makes this decision after he learns that Polonius has been killed). Until I hear otherwise, let us assume that Hamlet will just disappear, and that Queen Gertrude will not know that Hamlet has been killed. Afterall, who would suspect such an action? (Remembering that the entrace of King Hamlet's ghost in the scene between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude destroys Hamlet's credibility).

So, at this stage, King Claudius makes a significant concession of his happiness. He no longer is a part of a happy family, of course, and furthermore, he is killing Hamlet and obscuring this information from Queen Gertrude.

To round out my question a little, please remember that Hamlet is considered mad. So, it might not be too difficult to kill Hamlet in secret, and then have King Claudius say to Gertrude in effect: well, your son was mad, and now nobody knows where he is.

The reason King Claudius would do this is because he does not want to harm Queen Gertrude; and, by not harming Queen Gertrude, King Claudius maximizes his happiness (at least relatively).

[Willedever]

My reply meant you should read the play you're trying to discuss, shit head.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[Willedever]

That line you quoted is not what I meant, shit head.

Read the play.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[Willedever]

If you're going to try to talk about 'Hamlet,' here or anywhere, at least READ it.

http://www.hamletonline.com/hamletwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

I will fill in a very few details about this adjunct idea: the dysfunctional family.

First, I am not quite sure what a "close reading" of the play means (I have in the past heard the term used in a lecture by a famous woman professor at an important university on you tube). I suspect that it means a quite close and literal understanding of a phrase or paragraph.

But, I suspect, that when dealing with this topic (family dysfunctionality), we will hover over the play at, say, a "medium reading" and sometimes, based upon what the characters say and do, zoom in for a "close reading."

Again, this post simply glues things together a little.

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 6:33:55 AM UTC-5, craigshoemake...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a slight reworking of my preliminary "arc" concerning the tragedy of King Claudius.
>
> Adjunct Idea
> ------------
>
> But, first, here is an adjunct idea: family dysfunctionality. Surely, one would think, that over at least the past one hundred and thirty years or so, somebody would have stumbled upon this idea in the Hamlet play; and, I would imagine that somebody already has; but, I do not believe I have ever seen this idea before.
>
> The Hamlet play could be considered the most important play to hit the big screen (or your local stage) concerning a dysfunctional family: King Claudius, Queen Gertrude, and Prince Hamlet.
>
> This might account for why some writers see the numbers "2" and "1" in the play a lot; also, why Hamlet is often written about as binding together two (King Claudius and Queen Gertrude) as one.
>
> Here is a rather spooky passage in what I call the horror scene (the sceen between Hamlet and Gertrude):
>
> Act III, Scene IV:
> about line 146:
> Hamlet:
> ... Mother, for love of grace,
> Lay not that flattering unction to your soul,
> That not your trespass but my madness speaks.

If we see the above passage as symbolic, then we are at a "medium reading."
But, we can also see the above passage in a close reading, and understand its ramifications: if, indeed, family dysfunctionality is a concept Hamlet truly understands (and he appears to), then we might be impressed with Hamlet's knowledge of human nature. The next phase (for a later article), would be to see if Hamlet can create an understanding of this situation in his mother; however, we know, from our knowledge of how the play unfolds, that he will fail in this indeavor; and, in fact, this is usually the case in dysfunctional families; Hamlet will simply not be able to "make a proof." Thus, Queen Gertrude will remain "blind."

>
> Note, also, how previous to this point Gertrude does not see anything:
>
> Act III, Scene IV:
> about line 131:
> Queen: To whom do you speak this?
> Hamlet: Do you see nothing there?
> Queen: Nothing at all; yet all that is I see.
> Hamlet: Nor did you nothing hear?
> Queen: No, nothing but ourselves.
> Hamlet: Why, look you there, ...
>
> If there are psychologist in this news group, could the above lines be a symbol or representation of what would actually happen in a dysfunctional family? That is, where one of the parent figures, in this case Gertrude, is completely blind to the damage being done to her child by the other spouse?

In the above passage about Queen Gertrude "not seeing," let me add some glue to my ideas here. King Hamlet's ghost is the "glue." So, in the above passage, someone might say, but, the spouse, "King Claudius" is not even about. But, King Claudius is about and doing harm, and this is realized by the ghost of King Hamlet.

So, if Queen Gertrude can't see the ghost of King Hamlet, she can't see the glue which creates the association of bad King Claudius -> King Hamlet's Ghost -> knowledge of how Prince Hamlet is being abused and harmed.

So, that's all; I wanted to glue some pieces of this theory together by introducing King Hamlet's ghost as the "glue."

An interesting aside for the future, is to see if this "familial dysfunctionality" makes Hamlet a "popular" character; someone, that the average Joe on the street can identify to. Keep in mind, that if we were Greeks living in BC sometime, we probably would not want our children to watch Hamlet because he is a bad example of an adult. But, grown ups, in our own time, and in Shakespeare's time, may really identify with Hamlet's "rough spots," and they might quite easily be able to empathise with him (I personally, took a while to empathize with Hamlet, but everyone has their own rate of speed).

This then leads to the grand arc of the play, with its final effect: that when the audience leaves the play, and having identified with Hamlet, they literally feel a loss. And, this feeling of loss, is, at a much higher reading level, the overall effect of the play. But, hey, you can't just have a high level of a play, you need those details, that excitement, and it is quite likely that a dysfunctional family and a "wacky" Hamlet (or a revolutionary Hamlet or a wise-acre Hamlet or an anti-establishment Hamlet) creates just the tactical need necessary to carry the complete play (although, of course, Hamlet is less wacky, in general, when he returns from his attempted excursion to England).


Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

I just remembered one other aspect which enables everyone, intellectuals included, to "like" Hamlet, to identify with him, or even better, to empathize with him.

One would have to watch the play carefully, perhaps, and with a note pad next to you, write down those events where Hamlet attracts you; where you like Hamlet.

So, I will conduct this exercise, I hope, sometime in the next months, but here is a no brainer:

When Hamlet talks about me being the paragon of animals.

After all, who can resist that. I'm being flattered. Of course, I like Hamlet.

I suspect there are other things Shakespeare does besides creating a wacky Hamlet, which get us attracted to Hamlet.

At any rate, all this stuff about us being attracted to Hamlet and empathizing with him are crucial; and, not having made a proof at all, I suspect that Shakespeare pulled all the stops. Because Shakespeare needs us to empathize with Hamlet so that we can feel a loss of a significant person in our lives, so to speak, when the play ends.

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Here are a few more ideas related to the dysfunctional family motif.

A dysfunctional family with respect to how it is perceived and experienced by the child is an injustice. Similarly, the literal interpretation of the play, also represents an injustice to Prince Hamlet.

Many authors are puzzled by Hamlet's wacky activity in some parts of the play. And, certainly I do not pretend that I have ever understood them (here is one of many examples: some writers simply cannot understand why Hamlet is so cruel to Polonius; another example: why Hamlet is cruel to his mother in the scene featuring these two alone; of course, we need to be careful, because how we perceive Hamlet's cruelty and the extent of this cruelty depends very much on how the play is performed by the actor (and could very well depend in part on us seeing Hamlet as a victim of a dysfunctional family); see this interesting version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqP3DRGHD4Y

However, I think that we may begin to open the door to some of this wacky behavior if we use the following algorithm:

(1) We see the literal interpretation of the play: as injustice or injustices being carried out by King Claudius, which only Hamlet can see, feel, experience, and be abused and injured by.

(2) But, we may find it hard to puzzle out exactly how this would effect Prince Hamlet's behavior. One idea, is to see Hamlet as part of a dysfunctional family, and see if then, in this context, Hamlet's behavior seems to make more sense.


Here is another idea: familial dysfunctionality effects not only the child in this unit, but effects the child later in life. The more dysfunctional families in existence, the more children become adults who also have some type of dysfunctionality. Thus, these adults having these dysfunctionalities go on to an adult life where they also create forms of unjustice with respect to other adults in their sphere.

Or, to say it another way, you end up with a dysfunctional society (to some degree or another). And, the result of this dysfunctionality is injustice (to some degree or another).

So, even if someone wishes to not accept my hypothesis about Hamlet being a part of a dysfunctional family (at a close or medium reading), certainly most viewers of the play realize that there is some significant injustice being applied to Prince Hamlet; and, almost all people, to some degree or another, feel in their lives some aspects of injustice as well: thus, almost any human being living in an imperfect world can have some ability to empathize with Hamlet (even if on a first few viewings of the play, Hamlet's "rough spots" make him quite a difficult character to initially empathize with).

There are many aspects of the play, I suspect, if I remember correctly, which fan out from the specific, the individual, outward to the general. In fact, Hamlet's speeches, at least some of them, often float about sometimes being specific and then sometimes being more general (or referring to the plural instead of the individual).

Act III, Scene I, about line 69:
Hamlet:
... --there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
...

So, in the above speech, while I am not analyzing it in particular, I point out that all human's experience injustice to some degree or another in their daily lives, just as Hamlet's speech points out. And, so, almost all humans will empathize with Hamlet to some degree.


Thanks,
Craig


Hi,

Eventually, I may be able to integrate the concept of familial dysfunctionality with other aspects of the play as relates to the following two topics: (1) Empathy, and (2) The Widening Array of Empathetic Characters in Hamlet.


=====================================

Topic 1: Empathy

As far as my personal experience with Shakespeare goes, one of his hallmarks is to have me as the audience empathize in some way with the characters in the play.

Aside: Most of my Shakespeare viewing is based on the 1970's and 1980's VHS tapes of all of Shakespeare's plays as performed by the BBC I purchased at very low prices sometime in the past (perhaps 10 to 15 years ago).

Aside: Of course, I certainly hope, and assume, that Shakespeare is not cheapening my emotional responses with sentimentality. I do not think he is; but, this is an interesting area of exploration.

In general, I think Shakespeare creates interesting plays wherein I empathize with clearly imperfect characters (some few are close to perfect) in the plays.

Examples of plays which move me personally:

Winter's Tale
Twelfth Night
Measure for Measure
Hamlet
Merry Wives of Windsor
The Merchant of Venice
Much Ado About Nothing

(the above not listed in any particular order, though Measure for Measure I like best).

But, for me personally, I am less moved by Romes and Juliet. I like the play, and I think that some seens are amazing, such as Romeo attempting to kill himself and the minister repeatedly telling him that he is silly and should instead live. But, I am not overly moved by the ending.

Similarly, although great minds love the play about Antony and Cleopatra, I personally never get overly excited about people who kill themselves: hard to identify with, or feel empathy for on my part.

Also, although Othello is a great play, it gives me no point of contact with respect to my emotions expressing empathy; instead, it is like watching a horror movie.

My point in mentioning all these plays is not to elicite numerous responses and clutter this thread from its main point about Hamlet.

Instead, I am following my inner sense: that for me the great Shakespeare plays are the ones that allow my body to feel empathy for a character or characters in the play.

Aside: Abraham Lincoln is known as a great human who had a strong sense of empathy. It is perhaps not a stretch to suggest that Shakespeare, although a consumate poet and play write, might also penetrate greatness when his audience experiences empathy.

If we follow this line of thought, then how does Hamlet fit into this?

Well, I was just thinking about this. I think that Hamlet fits into this in that this is the one tragedy where I do empathize with the protagonist. I find it mind boggling that my protagonist has to die.

And so, with no clear, specific understanding on my part, there is I feel something in this idea yet to be discovered.

We, as the audience (if you are in this audience), empathize in the loss of someone, Hamlet, that we strongly link too.

And, the play is all about murder, killing, and loss.

The upshot of the play is that we authentically feel a loss at Hamlet's death (if you are "we").

And, I speculate that that is the emotion, just like the amazing empathetic emotions we feel in other great Shakespeare plays, that in this particular play we are to experience.

I'm not yet sure how this idea links up to my other three posts in this thread; but, it might very well eventually do so.

In short, I speculate that although Hamlet may appear to follow a "tragic line" thus
* The true initial tradegy is the murder of King Hamlet
* The resolution is the death of King Claudius
* And, Hamlet is consumed by death in this process.

That it is our empathy and our felt loss of Hamlet which moves us more than anything else in this "tragic outline." Almost every significant character experiences a loss of either father or brother or romantic interest. And at the end, we the audience experience the loss of Hamlet more than any other character (if you are in this audience).

It is our empathy with the experience of loss which probably drives the whole Hamlet play experience. The play appears to be about revenge; but, at the end, when we leave the theatre, and assuming we have experienced a good performance, we leave having ourselves experienced the loss of Hamlet.







=====================================


Topic 2: The Widening Array of Empathetic Characters in Hamlet

In some collection of books about Hamlet, I might in total find one or two articles which "bash" Laertes, saying that Laertes is a thin character, only cares about outward shows, and, they might even go on to say other bad things about Laertes (especially as concerns the fencing match at the end of the play).

As usual, I am not suggesting that any one in the play is an angel: that is, no one is perfect.

But, over time, that is, at least for me, decades, of having seen good performances of this play, the following happens (at least for me):

(1) On initial viewing, I am probably much confused about what is going on. I might imagine that I assumed that this was a tragedy, and so everyone had to die.

(2) Eventually I might start to "accept" Hamlet even though I don't understand him and his actions.

(3) Eventually, I start to empathize with Hamlet.

(4) Eventually, I start to empathize with the emotion of loss caused by my having known Hamlet who is now dead.

(5) Eventually, I start to empathize also with Claudius (who is the next major character).

(6) Eventually, I start to empathize also with Laertes.

And, so on.

Over time, it is possible that the audience increases their empathy for all the characters, regardless of how imperfect they are.

And as the audience becomes more empathetic of the loses all these characters undergo, the overall effect of the play -- which entails the audience's empathetic response to loss -- keeps adding up.

Please remember that this idea of the audience empathizing with multiple characters in a one play is nothing new to Shakespeare. The only thing different about Hamlet is that all the characters on face value appear difficult to empathize with, for one reason or another, depending on their character, their words, and their actions.

One writer suggested that these lines of Horatio at the end of the play also seem to act as a prologue to the Hamlet play, as if Shakespeare is inviting the audience, at some future time, back into the world at Elsinore:

Horatio:
...
And let me speak to th'yet unknowing world
How these things came about. So shall you hear
Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts,
Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters,
Of deaths put on by cunning and forc'd cause,
And, in this upshot, purposes mistook
Fall'n on the'inventors' heads. All this I can
Truly deliver.


This could very well be. I do not recall the reasons behind the arguments made for this. But, I would posit the argument that revisiting the Hamlet play carries out, over time, over years, over decades, an increase in the number of characters that the audience has empathy for.

(Of course, I am not suggesting that a person watch Hamlet once a week)

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:32:43 PM UTC-5, craigshoemake...@gmail.com wrote, in part:

...

> One would have to watch the play carefully, perhaps, and with a note pad next to you, write down those events where Hamlet attracts you; where you like Hamlet.

...

end quote in part.



Hi,

Actually, the above idea won't really work. I decided to watch the Branagh version of the play today, and the play is too rich, all the characters too interesting, the poetry too beautiful, to be able to write down one's human reaction to, let's say, every scene, or to determine in which way one is empathizing or identifying with which character or characters. The above idea, would be too massive an effort.

On another point:

Some writers have stated that the play is in two parts: (1) Hamlet's attempted revenge, and then (2) Laertes revenge upon Hamlet.

As a broad outline that may be true. Having just watched the play again, I might add the following:

(1) We first identify or empathize with Hamlet who is seeking revenge.
(2) Then, still identifying with Hamlet primarily (Shakespeare controls this focus), we then identify with Hamlet as the focus and target of Laertes' revenge (guided by the tactics of King Claudius).

I'm not sure I have seen this "empathetic technique" used by Shakespeare in any of his other plays. That is, taking one issue where Hamlet is seeking revenge, and then recasting it so that Hamlet is the subject of revenge. For this technique, and assuming the audience primarily empathizes with Hamlet, the audience empathizes with "both sides of the coin" but with the same character, Hamlet. I'll have to think about this more and see where it goes.

One possible way out of this "riddle," or at least as an adjunct topic, is to figure out why Hamlet killed Polonius. That is, why didn't Hamlet even look behind the curtain before killing whomever was there? This is a mystery to the play that I have not yet been able to solve. Is it generally true that people generally kill people spying on them in the years 1100 through 1600? Or at least, is this true if you are royalty? Would Queen Gertrude or King Claudius consider this standard behavior? (I suspect not, based upon their reactions to Polonius's death; but, then again, maybe they have gotten too used to spying on people, and maybe in general, in another castle somewhere, you really could end up dead, and be legitimately killed, for such spying; that is, we can't necessarily consider King Claudius as a guide to appropriate and expected behavior).

Gradually, I think I am peeling apart some of the mystery of Hamlet, in the recent posts in this thread. But, the killing of Polonius is a grand mystery. And, it is unclear if I will ever solve it.


Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 12:00:39 AM UTC-5, craigshoemake...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ... as an adjunct topic, is to figure out why Hamlet killed Polonius. That is, why didn't Hamlet even look behind the curtain before killing whomever was there? This is a mystery to the play that I have not yet been able to solve.
> ...
end partial quote

Hi,

Of course, this "grand" mystery may not really matter.

Keep in mind, at least when considering my experience of this Hamlet play over decades, I've never had any criticism of the play itself; that is, I would never say there is anything in the play that is faulty. Nothing in the play jars me to such an extent that I leave "the reality of the play." For example, even Hamlet's killing of Polonius does not jar me from the "reality of the play;" but, it is certainly horrific when you take into account the responses from Hamlet and Gertrude; it is jarring in that it is horrific, but it does not in any way threaten the "reality of the play" as I experience it; and thus, there is no fault upon the play write.

And, so, maybe it doesn't matter why Hamlet killed Polonius, because when the average guy, including me, watches the play, I never find fault in the play write that Polonius is killed.

I ask the question, then, to continue exploring the play; perhaps it is an intellectual exercise; but, perhaps it may reveal something about how Shakespeare structured the experience.

So, if any one has any historical information about this topic, please let me know. The assumptions are simple: Hamlet had no idea anyone was listening to him while he was talking to Ophelia earlier, and Hamlet has no idea whatsoever that anyone is listening or spying on him while he talks to his mother after the Mouse Trap play.

Again, one of my boring "historical" questions, I guess.

So, let me rephrase it: I, for whatever rediculous reason, travel to a neighboring country where there is a happy family: a King, a Queen, and a happy prince falling in love with a young women. I, for whatever rediculous reason, sneak into the Queen's room and hide behind a curtain during the time period of 1100 to 1600. The Prince, decides to play chess with his mother and comes to her room to do so. I, finding a gigantic spider crawling up my leg, yell out, "help, help, help!"

What will happen to me?

Will the prince draw his sword and kill me while I stand hidden behind the curtain?

Will the prince draw his sword, look behind the curtain, see me, and then kill me?

Will the prince draw his sword, look behind the curtain, see me, hit me across the face, and place me in a dungeon and then kill me after he has finished his game of chess?

I'm just trying to understand the social context of the time period. And, then, assuming I come to such an understanding, look at the play, and come to further conclusions.

Of course, just so you know, as concerns the play, I am aware that Hamlet is "pressurized" and ready to kill King Claudius; I understand that Hamlet may have issues with his mother's infidelity before King Hamlet died; I understand that when Hamlet enters his mother's room, she has been cued by Polonius to "go at him" which she does, that is, she provokes him, and I understand that Hamlet's "temperature" may be raised in this exchange. Furthermore, I understand that all this chemical mixture, could, perhaps, lead to Hamlet killing whomever was behind the curtain (which happened to be Polonius). So, my question does not reside within the context of the play itself; my question at this stage remains completely "historical" in nature, to understand the context of the time period.

Thanks,
Craig

[Don]

I suggest you consider that Polonius could be acted in such a way that
he is 1) part of the "rotten in Denmark," being party to the Kings
schemes and a member of the typical courtier class that flatters,
schemes, and lies to advance himself (I forget what Machiavelli said
about those operating in the court like that); but he is 2) a worthy
old man, compromised and past his prime, who tries to advise virtues
to daughter and son.

I'm suggesting that, understood sympathetically, the killing of
Polonius can be seen as very pathetic, a neat counterpoint to the
pathos of Hamlet gone mad, and perhaps even the plot climax, since it
comes after failing to kill Claudius at confession? bookburn

[marco]

bookburn,

you bring up an interesting point;
the killing of Polonius seems almost unnecessary...?

the length of this play is interesting in itself,
evidently revised at least once - maybe because of the length

you could argue, that there are too many large-ish character parts
[if one were to argue with Shakespeare! ]

have to give this some more meditation

marc

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:22:22 AM UTC-5, craigshoemake...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 12:00:39 AM UTC-5, craigshoemake...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > ... as an adjunct topic, is to figure out why Hamlet killed Polonius. That is, why didn't Hamlet even look behind the curtain before killing whomever was there? This is a mystery to the play that I have not yet been able to solve.
> > ...
> end partial quote
>
> Hi,
>
> Of course, this "grand" mystery may not really matter.
>
> Keep in mind, at least when considering my experience of this Hamlet play over decades, I've never had any criticism of the play itself; that is, I would never say there is anything in the play that is faulty. Nothing in the play jars me to such an extent that I leave "the reality of the play." For example, even Hamlet's killing of Polonius does not jar me from the "reality of the play;" but, it is certainly horrific when you take into account the responses from Hamlet and Gertrude; it is jarring in that it is horrific, but it does not in any way threaten the "reality of the play" as I experience it; and thus, there is no fault upon the play write.
>
> And, so, maybe it doesn't matter why Hamlet killed Polonius, because when the average guy, including me, watches the play, I never find fault in the play write that Polonius is killed.
>
> I ask the question, then, to continue exploring the play; perhaps it is an intellectual exercise; but, perhaps it may reveal something about how Shakespeare structured the experience.
>
> So, if any one has any historical information about this topic, please let me know. The assumptions are simple: Hamlet had no idea anyone was listening to him while he was talking to Ophelia earlier, and Hamlet has no idea whatsoever that anyone is listening or spying on him while he talks to his mother after the Mouse Trap play.
>
> Again, one of my boring "historical" questions, I guess.
>
> So, let me rephrase it: I, for whatever rediculous reason, travel to a neighboring country where there is a happy family: a King, a Queen, and a happy prince falling in love with a young women. I, for whatever rediculous reason, sneak into the Queen's room and hide behind a curtain during the time period of 1100 to 1600. The Prince, decides to play chess with his mother and comes to her room to do so. I, finding a gigantic spider crawling up my leg, yell out, "help, help, help!"

Hi,

I will attempt to make preliminary, uneducated answers to my own historical questions. I've also filled out the cases a little to include a case where the Prince and Queen are talking about deeply secret matters (which matches more closely how Hamlet might have felt when talking with his mother).

>
> What will happen to me?

I will be completely at the mercy of the Prince, since this is the time period 1100 to 1600, roughly.

>
> Will the prince draw his sword and kill me while I stand hidden behind the curtain?

I suspect not. But, he might very well decide to kill me once he sees it is me. Or, he might run his blade across my face and "scar" me (which I saw recently in the movie the Seventh Seal (black and white, from the 1950's).

What if the prince had been about to talk with his mother, the Queen, about very personal and important matters, life and death matters, or even life and death matters about political intrigue? And, then, I made noise behind the curtain revealing my presence as an adult male? As someone making a guess, this might be enough so that the Prince really gets pissed off and simply runs me through with a sword without first bothering to see who I am.

>
> Will the prince draw his sword, look behind the curtain, see me, and then kill me?

My uneducated answers to this are similar to my uneducated answers just given in the above question.
The Prince probably would feel it within his bounds of authority to kill me instantly if he so desired, or to scar my face with his blade.
What if the prince had been about to talk with his mother, the Queen, about very personal and important matters, life and death matters, or even life and death matters about political intrigue? And, then, I made noise behind the curtain revealing my presence as an adult male? As someone making a guess, this might be enough so that the Prince really gets pissed off and simply runs me through with a sword with or without first bothering to see who I am.

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 4:56:39 AM UTC-5, Don wrote:
>
> I suggest you consider that Polonius could be acted in such a way that
> he is 1) part of the "rotten in Denmark," being party to the Kings
> schemes and a member of the typical courtier class that flatters,
> schemes, and lies to advance himself (I forget what Machiavelli said
> about those operating in the court like that); but he is 2) a worthy
> old man, compromised and past his prime, who tries to advise virtues
> to daughter and son.

Hi Don,
Thanks for your response. I enjoy hearing ideas. But, I do not want to "respond" to your idea and clutter it up, per say. Unless, you'd also like me to give my opinion.
Thanks,
Craig

>
> I'm suggesting that, understood sympathetically, the killing of
> Polonius can be seen as very pathetic, a neat counterpoint to the
> pathos of Hamlet gone mad, and perhaps even the plot climax, since it
> comes after failing to kill Claudius at confession? bookburn

Hi Don,
Thanks for your ideas. Even if we, momentarily, don't worry about our own opinions about whether Hamlet is mad or not, I agree with you, in a sense, that the scene with Hamlet and his Mother, the whole scene, including the ending where Hamlet drags out the dead body while saying good night to his mother, is incredibly horrific and intense. Since I haven't outlined the play at this type of detail, I would preliminarily say that this scene receives an extremely strong accent. Punctuated by "echoes" later: (1) when a great actor, such as Jacobi, declares that "England, do it", and (2) Hamlet's last speach before getting on the boat.
I don't have any other comments because I have not looked at the play at that detail (all I have is an emotional outline in my being). But, yes, I would go so far as to say that when Hamlet kills Polonius, something horrible wrong has happened to our hopes for our protagonist!
Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Here is a rough draft of the modulating point in the play where Hamlet kills Polonius. As I have mentioned before, the play is perfect in that I stay completely within the "reality of the play" under the control of the play write.

Assumptions: Hamlet never had any idea any one was spying on him when he gave the "to be or not to be" speech and when he subsequently talked with Ophelia; also, Hamlet has no idea anyone is spying on him when he enters into his mother's chamber to talk with her after the Mouse Trap play.

Further: Polonius like Gertrude is completely mislead in not seeing that King Claudius is a bad guy. In fact, Polonius's interactions in all this started early in the play when his daugther, Ophelia, reported to him that Hamlet had visited her. From this point onward, Polonius is trying to help Hamlet, although he does it through spying. And, he does it thinking that such spying cannot possibly involve any risk to his well being. This is because he has no awareness of what information Hamlet knows about the over all situation.

Hamlet, of course, holds information (obtained from what he believes to be an honest ghost, and from his mouse trap play), which no other person in the play, perhaps say Horatio (who is not a primary actor in the play), knows.

Shakspeare needs to modulate the play from us at the beginning empathizing with Hamlet as a person seeking just revenge, to the later part of the play where we empathize with Hamlet as a target of revenge (from Laertes). (see previous posts on this thread).

This modulation starts at the point where Hamlet kills Polonius.

If we assume, that my uneducated guesses as to how someone in the time period of 1100 through 1600 would respond to someone spying on them, we note something very interesting:
(1) Poor Polonius and certainly Queen Gertrude would never assume that such spying could lead to tragedy; they are clearly trying to help Hamlet.
(2) But, Hamlet considers the spying sufficiently a "hot topic" a "motivating topic" because he knows the true state of affairs. (see my previous few posts).

Therefore, Polonius ends up dead, and Gertrude, who truly thinks Hamlet is mad, ends up totally confused.

This is a broad outline. It uses as its basis a standard Shakespearean technique: levels of awareness of the characters. And, it appears that in this case, Shakespeare utilizes the level of awareness of these characters to exactly bring about what he wants: that a relatively good-hearted act of spying leads to instant death. And, the death of Polonius, starts the modulation towards Hamlet becoming the target of revenge.

This, then, is my general feel for this mystery. We would still need to parse the quite small number of lines that are spoken by Queen Gertrude and Hamlet on or about the time when Polonius is killed. I have looked at these lines this evening, and they may not help us; hard to say. We may find that the lines spoken lead to fog. But, a "fog" is perfectly fine as long as Shakespeare is able to keep us in the "reality of the play," which he does with great skill.

Aside: if anyone has any ideas to add to my "historical question" in the last few posts, I'd still like to hear them, as I suspect that reading books about the Middle Ages that I check out from the library will never answer my questions.

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:26:00 AM UTC-5, craigshoemake...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a rough draft of the modulating point in the play where Hamlet kills Polonius. As I have mentioned before, the play is perfect in that I stay completely within the "reality of the play" under the control of the play write.

Hi,

I'll add some points to this.

Modulation was first mentioned in this post of this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/lkS5ocvuBwAJ/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/AwsqG7m4Xsc/QZfKGxezBgAJ

>
> Assumptions: Hamlet never had any idea any one was spying on him when he gave the "to be or not to be" speech and when he subsequently talked with Ophelia; also, Hamlet has no idea anyone is spying on him when he enters into his mother's chamber to talk with her after the Mouse Trap play.
>
> Further: Polonius like Gertrude is completely mislead in not seeing that King Claudius is a bad guy. In fact, Polonius's interactions in all this started early in the play when his daugther, Ophelia, reported to him that Hamlet had visited her. From this point onward, Polonius is trying to help Hamlet, although he does it through spying. And, he does it thinking that such spying cannot possibly involve any risk to his well being. This is because he has no awareness of what information Hamlet knows about the over all situation.
>
> Hamlet, of course, holds information (obtained from what he believes to be an honest ghost, and from his mouse trap play), which no other person in the play, perhaps say Horatio (who is not a primary actor in the play), knows.
>
> Shakspeare needs to modulate the play from us at the beginning empathizing with Hamlet as a person seeking just revenge, to the later part of the play where we empathize with Hamlet as a target of revenge (from Laertes). (see previous posts on this thread).
>
> This modulation starts at the point where Hamlet kills Polonius.
>
> If we assume, that my uneducated guesses as to how someone in the time period of 1100 through 1600 would respond to someone spying on them, we note something very interesting:
> (1) Poor Polonius and certainly Queen Gertrude would never assume that such spying could lead to tragedy; they are clearly trying to help Hamlet.
> (2) But, Hamlet considers the spying sufficiently a "hot topic" a "motivating topic" because he knows the true state of affairs. (see my previous few posts).

That is, Hamlet is about to discuss things quite private with his mother, things which Hamlet might consider personal and important private matters, matters perhaps involving life and death, and matters involving life and death and political intrigue. But, Gertrude and Polonius have absolutely no idea Hamlet would hold this point of view.
Furthermore, Hamlet is hot to kill Claudius. So, even if Hamlet's initial reaction to learning that someone is spying on him could very easily raise him to the level of running his sword through the unseen spy, Hamlet also doesn't mind if the unseen spy turns out to be Claudius.
Also, Hamlet has lots of other emotions (see dysfunctional family posts starting here):
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/ojJU1WMrBgAJ/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/AwsqG7m4Xsc/ojJU1WMrBgAJ

>
> Therefore, Polonius ends up dead, and Gertrude, who truly thinks Hamlet is mad, ends up totally confused.
>
> This is a broad outline. It uses as its basis a standard Shakespearean technique: levels of awareness of the characters. And, it appears that in this case, Shakespeare utilizes the level of awareness of these characters to exactly bring about what he wants: that a relatively good-hearted act of spying leads to instant death. And, the death of Polonius, starts the modulation towards Hamlet becoming the target of revenge.
>
> This, then, is my general feel for this mystery. We would still need to parse the quite small number of lines that are spoken by Queen Gertrude and Hamlet on or about the time when Polonius is killed. I have looked at these lines this evening, and they may not help us; hard to say. We may find that the lines spoken lead to fog. But, a "fog" is perfectly fine as long as Shakespeare is able to keep us in the "reality of the play," which he does with great skill.
>
> Aside: if anyone has any ideas to add to my "historical question" in the last few posts, I'd still like to hear them, as I suspect that reading books about the Middle Ages that I check out from the library will never answer my questions.

Aside: Has anyone ever written about, or seen written about, any theories dealing with Ophelia having lied to Polonius when she reports to him in Act II, Scene I, that Hamlet has just visited her? This is the initial act by Ophelia which gets Polonius "involved" in trying to solve Hamlet's madness issue. Of course, Ophelia also is tricked by the bad King Claudius and has no idea he is a bad guy. Sometimes characters in a Shakespeare play carry out an action and they cannt see its ripple effect and its final outcome. Here, through different levels of awareness (Gertrude, Polonius, and Ophelia being "blind" to Hamlet's real issues), and how the story unfolds, if Ophelia did lie to her father, Polonius, a sequence of events unfold wherein Polonius ends up dead.

Aside: Is it possible that while the court sees Hamlet gradually degrade (as explained by Plonius to the King and Queen, that is, Hamlet's gradual decline), Ophelia assumes that it is her rejection of Hamlet which has caused it? And, wishing not only to have a romantic relationship with Hamlet, but also wanting to stop him from further declination into melacholy, lies to her father about Hamlet having visited her, so that her father "comes on board on her side" and perhaps, eventually, she and Hamlet will get back together and Hamlet's melacholoy will end?


>
> Thanks,
> Craig

Postscript:
In the past few days, for me personally, I have been thinking about these two scenes:
(1) Hamlet's killing of Polonius,
(2) And Ophelia's earlier report to Polonius that Hamlet visited her in her chamber.

Both have the following, emotional, surface qualities to me:

They are both perfectly believable when I experience the play, which means that I am never pulled out of the "reality of the play" in any way, and thus, there is no fault on the play write: the play is perfect.

Above, I have posited ideas which allow us to understand Hamlet's killing of Polonius.

And, without at this stage giving proof, but using my intuition, I believe that Ophelia, with entirely good intentions in her heart, lied to her father, Polonius, about Hamlet having visited her.

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Now we can consider one other issue: Ophelia's madness. Again, when we see Ophelia mad, even if we are not psychiatrists, we accept what the play write has presented to us, that is, we do not leave the "reality of the play" experience.

Although, at least for me, having started writing this outline, I do wonder, when I am not watching the play, exactly how Ophelia actually did go insane.

Yes, her father being killed and having her father being killed by her romantic interest, Hamlet, are horrible; and, represent great stressors.

But, what if we add one more stressor? If we assume, as I am inclined to believe, that Ophelia lied to her father about Hamlet's visit to her chamber, and this is what started getting her father, Polonius, involved in spying adventures to help Hamlet from his madness. Then, it follows that Ophelia may not be blind to the fact that in some way or another, even though certaintly unwittingly, her lie to her father makes her in some sense, at least as she might feel it, responsible for her father's death.

Thus, when we add up all these three stressors, to me, any way, and I am not a trained psychologist, but to me, Ophelia's madness now starts to make more sense, it becomes more believable when I think about the play while not watching it.

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

Hi,

This news group appears to be relatively quiet. I speculate that this is because, for whatever reasons, over time, people have migrated to a different form of news group as mentioned by John W. Kennedy: "The action now is at the Facebook group "Oxfraud" and the website that goes with it."

However, a quiet news group is not always a bad thing. Imagine if I had started spinning out my ideas with thousands of ardent Shakespeare and Hamlet lovers reading it? They probably all would have responded immediately, off the cuff, with their ideas; and, quite likely I would not have been able to hear myself think. And, most likely, I would never have come up with anything potentially new, exciting, or even original.

Although I may have future rewriting to do (which won't happen any time soon, as I have other responsibilities), at this time, now that I have for the most part, at least in my head, come to a better understanding of the basics of the Hamlet play, I encourage others to post if they wish, so that I may see how my ideas are received.

Keeping in mind, of course, that even if we have differing ideas, it is pretty clear that we all still love the Hamlet play. Which is great. One person may think Hamlet is mad, and I may think Hamlet is sane, but we both absolutely love the Hamlet play regardless, and the Hamlet play still works for us and satisfies us. I find it quite remarkable that so many people can, for certain parts of the play, have quite different "takes" on the status of the characters, and yet, they all are so grandly moved by the play experience.



If you wish, although my ideas formed gradually (meaning, you will not be reading a well composed paper), you could start at this post and read until the end:

Dysfunctional family (Also includes the tragic arc of King Claudius): February 26, 2016
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/ojJU1WMrBgAJ/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/AwsqG7m4Xsc/ojJU1WMrBgAJ




Keeping in mind, that there is actually a crude outline also posted in this thread. I do not have the exact URL, but the last outline posted was on February 7, 2016, and I called it the "third draft of a time line and time gaps."




Also, keep in mind that some of my initial thoughts in a competely different thread, Hamlet Ripped from the Play, Hamlet, at this URL
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/Hamlet$20Ripped/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/a2kn5zOCNgk/YNMlUK8NGAAJ

would also be incorporated into the outline at a future time. That is, the outline of the play, instead of being one, long outline, would eventually become many outlines at different hierarchial levels. So, this past post would be at a high level. Particularly the post in this thread on February 3, 2016, I find most important, about how the "brush stroke" speech "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead," has a haunting resonance and emotional effect.

Other aspects I would eventually incorporate into the outline would be the "crescendo" of events starting at or on the time of the mouse trap play, the "undermining" of Hamlet's position when he kills Polonius, but still, Hamlet continues to "crescendo" with his final speech before getting on the boat to England: a most poignant effect (some writers find this working by Shakespeare weak and pathetic, or at the very best, making no plot sense).






Here are some posts in this thread which I have labeled for you with URL links:

Dysfunctional family (Also includes the tragic arc of King Claudius): February 26, 2016
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/ojJU1WMrBgAJ/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/AwsqG7m4Xsc/ojJU1WMrBgAJ

Modulation (empathizing with both sides of the coin in one character, Hamlet): February 28, 2016
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/lkS5ocvuBwAJ/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/AwsqG7m4Xsc/QZfKGxezBgAJ

Historical Questions about Spying: March 1, 2016
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/ajqnwfCMBwAJ/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/AwsqG7m4Xsc/ajqnwfCMBwAJ

Hamlet kills Polonius: modulation point: March 3, 2016
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/ajqnwfCMBwAJ/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/AwsqG7m4Xsc/w8WyfacSCAAJ

Ophelia's Madness: March 3, 2016
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/ajqnwfCMBwAJ/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/AwsqG7m4Xsc/ZJTeJHITCAAJ


Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 8:47:33 AM UTC-5, craigshoemake...@gmail.com wrote, in part:
>
> Other aspects I would eventually incorporate into the outline would be the "crescendo" of events starting at or on the time of the mouse trap play, the "undermining" of Hamlet's position when he kills Polonius, but still, Hamlet continues to "crescendo" with his final speech before getting on the boat to England: a most poignant effect (some writers find this working by Shakespeare weak and pathetic, or at the very best, making no plot sense).

> ...


Hi,

Actually, I should have been more precise: the "Hamlet crescendo" starts when the players initially arrive at the castle, and lasts until Hamlet's last speech before getting on the boat to England. But, during the long time span of this "crescendo," unfortunately, Hamlet kills Polonius.

Thanks,
Craig

[craigshoemake...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 8:47:33 AM UTC-5, craigshoemake...@gmail.com wrote, in part:

> ...

>
>
> Keeping in mind, that there is actually a crude outline also posted in this thread. I do not have the exact URL, but the last outline posted was on February 7, 2016, and I called it the "third draft of a time line and time gaps."

This URL for the time line and temporal gaps is:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/Here$20is$20a$20third$20draft$20of$20a$20time$20line$20and$20time$20gaps$20within$20the$20play$2C$20Hamlet.$20/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/AwsqG7m4Xsc/A4CKv7xjAAAJ


Note, that some authors do not notice a significant time gap between the end of Act I and beginning of Act II; and, not noticing this, can quite dramatically change one's interpretation of some events in the play.

So, although one need not read my complete time line with temporal gaps outline at the above URL, at least in the beginning of this outline (probably some where around the beginning of Act II), I give my sources and reasoning for the time gap.

For example, the noted author, Marjorie Garber, in her book, Shakespeare After All, in the chapter on the Hamlet play, which I read during lunch today, at some point, if I recall, quite explicitly stated that when Act II begins, Polonius is immediately sending a spy to check on Laertes; but, if we take into account a significant temporal gap, then this spy is not being sent immediately at all (and, also, this "spy's" primary mission is to replenish Laertes expense account).

Also, Marjorie Garber says that Ophelia is a reliable witness with respect to Ophelia's own account of Hamlet's visit. But, I believe that if one accepts a temporal gap, then one can start to show that Ophelia was not a reliable witness at all (she was pretty smart to try to and succeed in out witting her father).

Also, once we destroy Ophelia's credibility (although she carried out her actions with a good, clean heart), then that scene with Hamlet "appearing" as a "ghost" to Ophelia simply never happened, and this can change one's assessment of Hamlet quite significantly.

Thanks,
Craig

[marco]

.