--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
OK, Angela, let's start by clearing up the errors
in your introduction:
Someone refresh my memory if I'm wrong, but I believe Judy said
that my interpretation of the ghost's instructions to Hamlet was
"a gross misreading."
Fine so far.
She also said that my importation of Oedipus into my
reading of Hamlet was somehow ludicrous as well--I forget her
exact term of disapprobation.
I said no such thing. You need to learn to search
the archives, Angela, if you're going to refer to
what people say in past posts.
You said (as if this were something I had
denied):
"Hamlet is full of references to Oedipus, nor am I
the only critic to have seen that."
And I responded:
"Yes, it was quite a faddish interpretation in
the '40s; Olivier's film version of 'Hamlet'
was heavily influenced by Ernest Jones's 'Hamlet
and Oedipus.' It's an approach that adds some
very interesting emotional subtext. It's somewhat
of a stretch since there are no explicit
references to the Oedipus myth, but at least it
doesn't do violence to the text of the play."
"Ludicrous"?? How on earth did you get "ludicrous"
from that paragraph?
If I remember correctly, she said something about fad readings
of Oedipus in the twenties,
In the '40s.
which she somehow disparaged
Closest I came to "disparaging" was to say it
was "a bit of a stretch."
, and in doing so, felt
I had been demolished as well because she lumped me together
with them.
Hardly. What was "demolished" was your notion
that I rejected Oedipal interpretations of the
play.
The readings of she refers to were Freudian interpretations.
I am not a Freudian by any stretch of the imagination, though
I do think that he was on to something.
Of course he was. And the parallels to the
Oedipus myth in terms of the relationships
involved are obvious. But then patricide by
a son is hardly an unusual motif in
literature generally. In this case, though,
there are several twists--Claudius is Hamlet's
uncle by blood, and his father only by marriage
to Hamlet's mother; and Claudius is the murderer
of Hamlet's real father. So it's quite a bit
more complicated than the relationships in the
Oedipus myth. Nor, of course, does Hamlet ever
marry his mother!
That's why I said it was a "stretch" to try
to see Oedipus in Hamlet. To the extent there
are shared elements, they're rather commonplace;
to the extent that the elements of the Oedipus
myth stand out in "Hamlet," they're much more
complex than the original myth. So it's not a
really good fit. It's a better fit via the
Freudian interpretation, however, than by the
mythical one.
<snip>
But I'm not a Freudian critic, my reading of Oedipus is not
a Freudian reading either, so I can't figure how relevant her
comparison between me and them is.
The only comparison I made was to say that
the Freudian interpretation doesn't do violence
to the play, whereas yours does.
I'm interested in mechanisms other than those addressed
by psychologists who deal with the content of consciousness, as
most Western psychologists have been doing.
Hamlet Sr. (in his capacity as ghost--which is a Shakespearean
concept that is pertinent to present context) tells Hamlet Jr.
that evil has arisen in the land (sound like a picnic in Hawaii
or does that actually remind of you of the Gita?).
Again, "evil arising in the land" is such a
frequent element in literature there's no good
reason to tie it to either the Oedipus myth or
the Gita.
But more importantly, the Ghost does *not* tell
Hamlet "evil has arisen in the land." He speaks
almost exclusively about his murder by his brother
and his desire that Hamlet avenge him. He mentions
in passing that "the whole ear of Denmark" has been
"rankly abused" by the story that he died of a
snake bite, but that's the extent of his expressed
concern with the state of his kingdom.
Hamlet is well aware
of it and we know what he said: "Something's rotten in the State
of Denmark."
No, Hamlet doesn't say that, it's Marcellus, after
the Ghost draws Hamlet aside to speak to him alone.
There's certainly a political backdrop to the play,
but it's nowhere near as important as the personal
interactions and family tragedy. It just gives
them a framework and elevates their importance.
And now, a ghost shows up, claiming to be Hamlet's father
and king.
No, the Ghost has already shown up, twice. And it
doesn't claim to be Hamlet's father, Hamlet
*recognizes* it to be his father and the Ghost
confirms it. (Marcellus and Horatio have earlier
also recognized it as Hamlet's father.)
And the ghost says that he was murdered by his brother and, not
only that, his brother married Hamlet's mom
Hamlet already knows Claudius married his mother.
What he doesn't know--although he suspects--is that
Claudius murdered his father.
--considered an
incestuous relationship in Hamlet's day. The ghost also says that
Hamlet has to avenge (important Shakesperean concept not to be
confused with modern usage of the term). In order to do that, he
has to kill his "relative" (anyone see any similarity to the
Gita here?).
But once again, Angela, murders of relatives are a
dime a dozen in literature; there's no unique
resonance to the Gita here. Plus which, Arjuna
killing his relatives happens in the course of battle,
not a close family drama.
Evil has arisen in the land
Evil has arisen in the *family*. The land is
secondary. The land will suffer, but only because
of the disastrous situation in the royal court.
and it
falls to the Prince to do something about it (which includes
killing a relative) in order to root out the evil, purify
Denmark from what's rotten in it, and bring order and peace to
the land (Shakesperean concepts: order and kingship etc.).
As noted, this is hardly the most prominent
theme in the play. Far more important is family
honor.
We're comparing two pieces of literature from two vastly
different cultures. But the basic situation is universally
human. If it is kali yuga now, then , by definition we have
an evil government, don't we? So, not an unfamiliar situation.
But a very unimpressive correlation, given the
vast difference in circumstances and themes.
The similarities are so superficial as to be
meaningless.
Hamlet has to kill his Uncle Claudius (who is now his step-father
and king), and then the ghost adds one more important
instruction: "But, howsoever thou pursuest this act,/ taint not thy
mind, nor let thy soul contrive/ Against thy mother aught. Leave
her to heaven,/ And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge/ To
prick and sting her.
I compared "taint not thy mind" with verse 45 which counsels
a young prince in a similar situation to perform action without
incurring bad karma, to do it "established in being," a realm
outside of Nature.
That's the gross misreading, right there. You've
isolated "taint not thy mind" as if it were a
separate instruction, but it refers to Hamlet's
mother; it's parallel to "nor let thy soul contrive."
The Ghost doesn't want Hamlet to blame or try to
punish his mother. The entire portion you quote is
the Ghost's instructions to Hamlet as to how to
think about and treat his mother. You've wrenched
that one phrase, "taint not thy mind," out of an
integrated, complete thought, and attributed an
entirely unrelated meaning to it.
Rearrange the words slightly: Taint not thy mind
against thy mother, nor let thy soul contrive
against her aught. Obviously the rhythm is better
as Shakespeare has it, but it's all one thought,
not two entirely different thoughts.
I also
said "father" especially "ghost of father" "unmanifest
father," is a symbol of the Absolute. And, seeing a pattern, I went
a step further and said that "mother" is a universal symbol of
Nature. Leave her to heaven.
Now, is this a "gross misreading?" It might not be Judy's
reading of the play, but is it a misreading? Never mind a gross
misreading? Judy has said that it is a gross misreading,
but she has not said how that is the case?
I explained it in detail several weeks ago, along
with several other points you haven't addressed. If
you want to refresh your memory, they're #152978 and
#153010.
Now, mind you, I've not argued my case fully by any means,
I've just outlined some basics.
And gotten several of them badly wrong, as noted.
I've not said much of anything about how
Oedipus fits into all this. In addition
to the Freudian reading of Hamlet (a legitimate reading even
if Judy calls it "faddish")
It *was* "faddish." It went along with the
general fad for Freud and psychoanalysis in
the '40s and tended to fall out of favor as
Freud did. But I never said it was illegitimate;
to the contrary. It's a *stretch*, but it's
quite psychologically powerful, and as I noted,
it doesn't do any violence to the play.
That's in contrast to *your* reading of the play,
which, as far as you've explained it, is simply
incoherent.
there is the reading I've given of Oedipus.
And that reading dove tails with my reading of Hamlet.
My reading of the play is that Hamlet gains something we
shall call enlightenment. He is not a static character.
There is a decided change in him and in the way he sees
the world. In the end, he allows himself to be used as
God's instrument to root out evil by killing Claudius
(forfeiting his own life) and thus restoring order to
Denmark.
I personally don't see anything like enlightenment
dawning on Hamlet. He's obviously depressed, and
one could suggest that he's going through a "dark
night of the soul," but he never actually comes
out of it; at best, right before the last scene,
he appears to achieve a state of sad resignation.
Throughout the play, his whole world has fallen
apart piece by piece, even including his own
self-image as a responsible person. And of course
in the last scene virtually the entire court of
Denmark, including Hamlet, is slain in an orgy of
bloody violence.
Previously Hamlet has killed the innocent
Polonius by accident, thinking he was Claudius,
and caused the suicide of his lover, Ophelia.
Maybe he's acting as "God's instrument," but it's
hardly a noble role given the circumstances.
There isn't much that's uplifting about it. The
characters do terrible things to each other and
meet awful ends. Before he dies, Hamlet has to
beg Horatio not to commit suicide, and Horatio
agrees to live and tell the ghastly tale as a
kind of warning. There's no particular indication
that Fortinbras will be able to restore the
kingdom to health, but at least the decks have
been cleared, albeit at a horrible cost.
Whether Hamlet achieves enlightenment at the end
of the play is something about which reasonable
people can disagree. I see no evidence for it,
but in and of itself it isn't outrageously wrong
(unlike your misreading above). I don't happen
to think the idea of Hamlet becoming enlightened
is particularly interesting, frankly. It seems
like a sort of tacked-on Disneyfied fairy-tale
ending that tries to pretty up all the blood and
guts snd make something noble of it.
Horatio's wish for Hamlet that "flights of angels
sing thee to thy rest" is pathetically unrealistic
given the mayhem for which Hamlet is responsible.
You'd think if he were God's instrument in killing
Claudius, God would have given him the stones to
have done it while Claudius was praying in his
closet, thus sparing Hamlet's own life and the
lives of at least four other people, including his
mother and his lover. If Hamlet's noble father had
to stumble around in chains every night to expiate
his sins, what are the chances of Hamlet, Jr.,
getting an angelic escort to heaven?
Anyway, as I said, we can agree to disagree on
this point, at least.
Your turn.
